Censuswide - on behalf of Lowell credit management company - has conducted new research on 1,000 respondents in the UK, which found that 17 per cent of the customers spoken to would consider delaying retirement for five years - with 12 per cent delaying for at least 10 years.

Of the customers over 45 years of age who were surveyed, 31 per cent said they were delaying their retirement due to debt worries and 9 per cent of customers of the same age said that they would never be able to retire.

More than one in five of those surveyed were genuinely concerned that their pension was not enough to live on – and the statistics also revealed that 8 per cent worry that they will accumulate debt because their state pension and/or workplace pension will not be enough. A further 6 per cent worried that they will not be able to support their family and another 6 per cent are concerned that they will not know - until retirement age - how much pension they will be paid.

Several misconceptions were revealed by the research:

• 13 per cent of those surveyed believe you must apply for a workplace pension - but if you meet the requirements for the new State Pension, you will be automatically enrolled.

• 12 per cent of the people surveyed believe you can access your State Pension early - but the earliest you can get your State Pension is once you reach State Pension age.
• 13 per cent believe you must apply for a workplace pension - but the regulations have changed to mean that all employers must provide a workplace pension scheme, or 'automatic enrolment' if you meet certain conditions

• 11 per cent believe that you can only retire once you get to 65 years of age.

John Pears - UK CEO of Lowell - commented:

“Lowell’s research confirms that our customers do have concerns around managing their debt and retirement. But, it’s also highlighted that there are many common misconceptions and worries surrounding retirement across the general public - indicating that our customers are not alone and that retirement fund fears are an important issue for many.”

The UK workforce is undergoing radical transformation, as the ‘great resignation’ signals a thirst for change.

A survey by BT has revealed that - given the opportunity - 69 per cent of the workforce would choose to reskill.

The sectors topping the list for people wanting to making the switch to, are technology - cited by 60 per cent; health at 17 per cent and finance 10 per cent.

Of the UK’s adult workforce, 22 per cent revealed that they were not happy in their current job and 42 per cent feel trapped - unable to find a way to change their present career path, feeling that the barriers to gaining the required skills to make a change are too great.

The research has shown that 31 per cent of the workforce wishing to change believe they are too old to learn new skills; 28 per cent state that the uncertainty of being accepted by a new industry is their biggest worry and 24 per cent said they cannot afford to take the time off to study.

In addition to this, 8 per cent of employees are fearful that their current job would be at risk if their employer knew of their interest in different work - and that number increases to 19 per cent amongst 18–24-year-olds, who say that their greatest barrier to retraining is lack of knowledge on how to change their situation.

As a result of this, BT has announced that they are launching a pilot cyber security reskilling programme in collaboration with CAPSLOCK - an award-winning cyber security training organisation.  This will enable current BT employees to retrain, equipping them with the skills needed to pursue a career in Security - whilst still being paid their normal wage.

Having graduated, BT’s new cyber employees will become Protectors. They will contribute to the protection of BT, their UK customers, government and critical national infrastructure.

Kevin Brown - Managing Director, BT Security - said:

“There simply aren’t enough people with the necessary skills to fill the amount of cyber security jobs available. The ‘cyber skills gap’ is a hot topic in the security industry, and this pilot reskilling programme with CAPSLOCK is a key part of how we’re working to develop the next generation of cyber security professionals. The scheme is all about opening doors for those who might not have seen an obvious way into a security career, and we’re welcoming people who have different skillsets, backgrounds and ages as we’re really looking for a diverse range of talent across our security team.”

Dr Andrea Cullen - Co-founder at CAPSLOCK - stated:

“Our mission in partnership with BT is to enable anybody with potential to enrol and change careers into cyber security. Importantly, we want to change perceptions that it is not just technical skills that are required to do well in this sector. The reality is that the field needs a broad array of skills and experts to fill a range of roles, many of which rely on transferable skills that many people already possess, and the holistic cyber skills which are developed throughout the CAPSLOCK course. With the right attitude and determination, anybody – no matter their past experience, education or age – has the potential to start a career in IT, technology, or cyber security.”

A recent poll of 200 HR managers - conducted by Wellbeing Partners - found that only 20 per cent of employers discourage employees from sending and replying to emails outside working hours and more than two thirds do not give any guidance on the safe use of technology and taking breaks away from screens.

More than three-quarters - 76 per cent of employers - do not offer any guidance to their staff about regularly taking annual leave.

Additionally, in the Wellbeing Partners survey 49 per cent of HR managers say their employees are struggling to find motivation and stay focused; 42 per cent agree that employees appear regularly tired or drained; 33 per cent say that employees seem to care less about work and 28 per cent feel that employees are finding tasks overwhelming or uninteresting. As well as this, 26 per cent state that employees appear resentful or cynical towards work and colleagues.

Lou Campbell - Programmes Director at Wellbeing Partners - said:

“It’s clear there is mounting pressure for HR, but there are some initial actions they can take to support employees while setting boundaries for their own wellbeing. Ensure that supportive conversations with employees follow a framework and schedule these conversations at a time when you have the energy and capacity to be supportive. Aim to finish work on time most days and give permission to switch off to avoid compassion fatigue. Knowing when to signpost employees onto wellbeing counsellors and EAPs is also a technique that HR professionals can learn, affording them more time and energy for their wider role, and ensuring that employees get appropriate professional support”.

The survey also reveals that when handling rising burnout and mental health concerns, HR is struggling to set boundaries for their own psychological safety.

Lou Campbell stated:

“While HR has a duty of care to support employees suffering with their mental health, they often neglect to look after themselves. For people in supporting roles, it’s useful to know what the appropriate boundaries are when discussing mental health issues with colleagues, to avoid becoming enmeshed or overly involved. Appropriate boundaries ensure that the conversation stays psychologically safe for the employee, and avoids compassion fatigue for HR.

Knowing the skills around setting boundaries and signposting to appropriate support is even more vital in a time when attracting and retaining staff is highly competitive; organisations must support HR to reduce the risk of key HR talent leaving their organisation as they deal with surging levels of employee burnout”.

Latest data from XpertHR - the UK’s leading online HR resource - has revealed that 77 per cent of HR professionals feel confident that over the next five years there will be good job prospects in the profession. This is the same figure as recorded by XpertHR in their 2017 research - suggesting that the positive outlook displayed by HR has not been diminished by the pandemic.

This year’s HR careers survey found that 39 per cent of UK HR professionals reported a positive impact on their career - resulting from the coronavirus pandemic - with interest in remote HR jobs never having been higher. Only 18 per cent of HR professionals saw a negative impact, whilst 32 per cent experienced no impact and under 11 per cent were not sure. Many of those seeing a negative impact on their career reported a significantly increased workload.

Craig McCoy - Senior Interim HR director and Chair of the London HR Connection -told HR magazine:

“The pandemic gave HR leaders an opportunity to respond proactively and shine in the context of almost unprecedented global disruption, and the aftermath of the pandemic as businesses pivot towards hybrid working means that HR skills and experience continue to be highly sought after. Certainly, it seems to be a great time to be working in the HR profession.”

Adam Oliver - Network HR Director - added that Covid has led to more employees from HR backgrounds being appointed to director-level positions.

He said:

"We’ve also seen an increased appetite in non-executive director appointments for executives hailing from a HR background to steer things like culture change at board level. This is certainly a post pandemic trend. This new world of working has accelerated business and cultural transformation which has baked-in a symbiotic relationship between HR and the business."

HR professionals also reported a change in the skills required to conduct their jobs - with 58 per cent saying the main skill needed is employee relations and 57 per cent citing business awareness. A comprehensive knowledge of employment law was fundamental for 46 per cent.

Michael Carty - XpertHR Benchmarking Editor of XpertHR - stated:

“For many HR professionals, the last two years have been among the most eventful and testing times in their careers. People management issues – such as implementing remote work models and creating safe office environments for returning employees – have topped the corporate agenda for many organisations during the pandemic, creating both challenges and opportunities for HR. It is heartening to see that the coronavirus pandemic has not dampened HR's overall positive outlook and enthusiasm for careers in the profession.”

According to new analysis by talent solutions consultancy Robert Half, only nine CEOs running FTSE 100 companies are women – despite a drive for diversity and initiatives to support the progression of women in the workplace.

A background in finance and banking was held by 42 per cent of the female CEOs - despite only 19 of the top 100 companies being in the financial sector and of these CEOs, 16 are Chartered Accountants or Chartered Management Accountants, making this the most common profession at the top. Robert Half says that this is a trend that may be linked to concerns over the financial downturn of recent years.

Of the nine female CEOs in the FTSE 100, four were from the financial sector - covering insurance, banking and asset management. They are Italian born Milena Mondini-de-Focatiis of the Admiral Group; Amanda Blanc of Aviva; Alison Rose-Slade of the NatWest Group and Anne Farlow of Pershing Square Holdings.

The research found that 68 per cent of the female CEO’s got to the head of the organisation via internal promotion.  This was a 24 per cent increase up from 2019 - which suggests that planning strategies are being enhanced. However, 47 per cent had been awarded a postgraduate qualification, with 23 per cent holding an MBA.

In previous years,18 per cent of CEOs had attended Oxford or Cambridge, but only four from the current list of FTSE 100 CEOs have been educated at these faculties.

Leyla Tindall - Managing Director for Robert Half Executive Search - said:

“Despite significant progress by companies to improve female representation over the last few years, there are quite simply not enough female bosses filling the top spot in the UK’s most successful companies. There is a myriad of reasons for this, but the most significant is the shortage of females in leadership positions - so shortlists for C-suite roles are often not as diverse as they could be. While the introduction of shared parental leave and better support for women returners is encouraging, the time spent away from the workplace to care for a family still sets women back, while their male counterparts continue to progress.”

A poll of 4,000 British professionals conducted by CoursesOnline – a workforce training company – found that approximately one-third of respondents did not believe that studying for professional qualifications is worth the effort.

On the other hand, 67 per cent of the professionals were confident that such studies were worth the effort; 49 per cent stated that they believed their level of qualification enabled them to get the role that they wanted; 18 per cent said that a lack of qualification was stopping them from getting the role they sought - and 33 per cent stated that their level of qualification was irrelevant to them being offered a job.

The industries that felt that the qualifications were most worthwhile were Social Work – 90 per cent of respondents believed in putting in time and effort to gain qualifications; Teaching and Education – 87 per cent felt qualifications were worthwhile and Law, with 85 per cent believing professional qualifications were worth the effort.

The sectors that considered that qualifications were least worthy were Energy and Utilities and Creative Arts and Design - where 63 per cent and 72 per cent respectively believed professional qualifications were not worth the effort - and in Recruitment and HR, 60 per cent of respondents felt the same.

When asked how they preferred to learn, 36 per cent of respondents cited learning on the job and 29 per cent stated taking dedicated courses. Only 11 per cent stated professional industry qualifications and just 10 per cent said through industry publications and social media.

Sarah-Jane McQueen - General Manager of CoursesOnline - explained that the findings demonstrated that… “the learning material provided to see learners through the qualification process can’t afford to be generic – those studying need real-world examples as to how what they learn is applicable to their day-to-day work”.

The Chancellor- Rishi Sunak - recognised in his spring statement that the UK lags in adult technical skills compared to other countries - and said that the government would consider whether they were “doing enough to incentivise businesses to invest in the right kinds of training”.

Naomi Phillips - Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Policy and Research at the Learning and Work Institute - welcomed the focus on skills spending. She warned that the last decade had seen a drop in business investment in skills and added:

“More support is needed for people who have fallen out of the workforce who can return but need to retrain or reskill.”

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.” 

The Public Accounts Committee’s updated Covid 19 cost tracker - published last week - has revealed that the amount of fraud and error in the government’s furlough scheme is far greater than expected.

It was found that an estimated 8.7 per cent of money distributed by the scheme - equivalent to £5.3bn - has been lost to fraud and error.

HMRC announced last month that an estimated £5.8bn had been lost to fraud across all its schemes supporting businesses during the pandemic. The schemes included the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme; Self-Employment Income Support Scheme and Eat Out to Help Out.

However, a government spokesperson stated that no payments claimed fraudulently have been written off - and that action is being taken to recover overpayments.

The spokesperson said:

“HMRC’s Taxpayer Protection Taskforce is expected to recover up to £1bn from fraudulent or incorrect payments. There are lessons to learn but we reject many of the statements made by the PAC.”

The taskforce, which is receiving £100m of funding from the government, will consist of 1,265 HMRC employees and their aim is to recoup £1bn of furlough support which has been wrongly claimed by businesses. 

Kate Palmer - HR Advice and Consultancy Director at Peninsula - blamed the changing furlough rules and requirements for the confusion caused to employers. 

She said that it would be “beneficial for employers to proactively check that they have stored the necessary information and seek to compile this where data is missing”. 

She added that employers could complete their own compliance check of their partaking in the furlough scheme and report any errors in their claims to HMRC - explaining:

“While some may be concerned to highlight a mistake, often this will avoid increased penalties if HMRC were to identify this first.”

Alan Lewis - Partner at Constantine Law - also stated that businesses should review how they have made claims under the scheme. 

He said:

“If mistakes have been made, get professional accountancy and legal advice and be prepared to make provision for payment of additional tax liabilities.”

He advised employers that they should keep all relevant records for six years and consult HMRC guidelines quickly - warning that if there has been a fraud, directors of a limited company can be held personally liable.

Andrew Bailey - Governor of the Bank of England - has suggested that employees should not ask for large pay increases, even as inflation rises.

Inflation - as measured by the consumer prices index (CPI) - is expected to rise above 7% this year, peaking at around 7.25% in April and averaging close to 6% in 2022. However, according to a survey, workers are receiving pay rises of below 5%, which means a fall of 2% in post-tax incomes. This would be the biggest fall in living standards since 1990 when records began.

In an interview, Andrew Bailey said that while acceptance of inflation rising faster than wages would be "painful", it was necessary as inflation could spiral if employers then passed on any higher wage costs to consumers.

In an interview with The BBC’s Today programme last week Mr Bailey said:

"I'm not saying 'don't give your staff a pay rise' - this is about the size of it."

In response, General Secretary of Unite, Sharon Graham said:

"Workers don't need lectures from the governor of the Bank of England on exercising pay restraint.”

And Gary Smith, General Secretary of GMB Trade Union stated:

“Telling the hard-working people who carried this country through the pandemic they don’t deserve a pay rise is outrageous. According to Mr Bailey, carers, NHS workers, refuse collectors, shop workers and more should just swallow a massive real-terms pay cut at the same time as many are having to choose between heating and eating.”

As from 1st April, free testing will come to an end for most people in England, resulting in business groups warning that the cost and responsibility of testing should not fall on employers.

The British Chambers of Commerce has said that the government ‘must not pass on public health decisions to businesses’ - and their Co-Executive Director, Claire Walker stated:

"Access to free testing is key to managing workplace sickness and maintaining consumer confidence. If the government is to remove this, companies must still be able to access tests on a cost-effective basis.”

Matthew Fell - a Policy Director at the Confederation of British Industry - is also of the opinion that free testing benefits businesses.

He said:

"While free testing cannot continue forever, there is a balance to be struck between confidence building and cost-cutting. Mass lateral flow testing has kept our economy open and firms continue to believe the economic benefits far outweigh the costs."

However, Kitty Ussher - Chief Economist at the Institute of Directors - commented that many business leaders will see the Prime Minister’s announcement as a sign that the worst of the pandemic is over - but they will still want to try to keep staff and customers safe.

She said:

"It is up to individual businesses to determine their own arrangements in the way that works for them. In this regard, keeping lateral flow tests free until 1st April - and longer for vulnerable groups - will be welcome."

In addition to the end of free testing, self-isolation rules will also end - as well as self-isolation payments for those on low incomes.

Despite people with Covid no longer being legally required to self-isolate, guidance will remain in place for those who test positive to stay at home and avoid contact with others for at least five full days – but self-isolation support payments of £500 for those on low incomes will no longer be available. Nor will it be a requirement for workers to tell their employer if they need to self-isolate.

Dan Shears - National Health and Safety Director for the GMB Union - criticised the Prime Minister's announcement as "nonsensical".

He stated:

"Asking people to exercise responsibility whilst taking away a key workplace provision for them to do that just shows how incompetent this government is.”

He added:

"The UK's poverty statutory sick pay rates, among the lowest in Europe, are a public health hazard as workers cannot afford to stay home when they are ill."

Howden Employee Benefits and Wellbeing are encouraging Human Resources (HR) experts to instigate a staff retention drive in 2022.

A recent survey by Howden, where 160 senior HR professionals were polled, showed that 81 per cent of employers said there were too few - at 68 per cent - of suitable applicants for vacancies, with 13 per cent saying they had no candidates at all.

Only 12 per cent of employers were not currently experiencing any recruitment challenges, but 36 per cent of employer respondents told Howden Employee Benefits & Wellbeing researchers that they expected a vacant position to remain unfilled for between three and six months - with 10 per cent experiencing wait times of up to nine months.

The HR respondents also said that the effects of the delays in new appointments were aggravated by the length of time it took a new worker to achieve their full level of output. Only 7 per cent of employers expect a new employee to reach their peak output in the first three months of employment; another 56 per cent of respondents suggest six to twelve months and 2 per cent consider that it would take a year or more for maximum output to be achieved.

Steve Herbert - Head of Benefits Strategy at Howden Employee Benefits & Wellbeing - said:

“A retention drive should be a high priority for many more businesses this year. The focus of the exercise should be to highlight the uncertainties of leaving for a new job elsewhere, whilst also strongly reminding employees of the benefits of continuing in their current employment.

In particular, we would encourage employers to really promote those important – but so often overlooked or poorly communicated – employee benefits offerings. Employer-funded benefits such as Group Life Assurance, Group Income Protection, and Group Private Medical Insurance are now even more important following a worldwide health crisis. 

It follows that workers may be far less inclined to change employers once they better understand that such a move may result in a break in the cover provided, or even the loss of these valuable protections altogether.”

Steve Herbert went on to suggest that retaining existing talent should be focussed upon by employers in 2022, but disappointingly the Howden survey revealed that only 22 per cent of employers were currently looking to implement any form of retention drive.

The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW) are hailing a ‘huge win’ after the High Court ruled against Tesco supermarket introducing ‘fire and hire’ tactics at their distribution centres.

The claim against Tesco was made on behalf of forty-two employees - represented by Thompson Solicitor’s - who faced changes to their terms of employment which would have meant a loss of pay.

The workers involved in the claim are employed at Tesco distribution centres in Daventry and Litchfield. They had previously been given an entitlement known as retained pay - which the company proposed to remove - by firing and then rehiring them.

Mrs Justice Ellenbogen stated that the “difficulty” of the case was not in the intention to dismiss and re-engage staff - but in the intention to terminate the original contract for the purpose of extinguishing or diminishing the right to retain pay.

In her decision, the judge said there was “….an implied term that Tesco will not exercise the right it would otherwise enjoy to give notice to terminate such a contract for the purposes of removing the right to retained pay.”

Neil Todd - of Thompsons Solicitors, who specialise in trade union law - said that the firm were:

“…proud to have represented a trade union in taking on corporate giants.”

He added:

“Tesco had made unequivocal commitments to its workers who had come into work throughout the lockdown, when it needed them most. The court agreed that, in those circumstances, it wasn’t then open to them to deploy fire and rehire tactics when it suited them.”

“This is a huge win for the workers and for USDAW. The practice of firing and rehiring staff on less favourable terms and conditions has been in widespread use over the last 18 months as employers try to erode rights that have been hard fought for and are there to protect some of the lowest paid in society.”

As a result of the ruling, experts have said it has given firms cause to carefully consider their planned changes to contracts. 

James Potts - Director of Legal Services at Peninsula - said:

“Even if they consult fully, have a justifiable business case and negotiate with employees, there still may be an underlying risk that employers will not be able to enforce changes to existing terms.”

Joanne McGuinness - national officer for USDAW - said:

“Companies are more frequently resorting to using fire and rehire tactics when they want to reduce employees’ terms and conditions of employment. The group faced having their wages cut as part of a change to their terms and conditions of employment by Tesco. Today’s High Court ruling will prevent the supermarket’s ‘fire and rehire’ practice in this case where it had sought to lay people off and re-employ them on new contracts, with less favourable terms and conditions, in England. The court noted that the forty-two workers had been guaranteed an entitlement to a specific payment labelled ‘retained pay’ to keep them within the business, which Tesco intended to remove by firing and then rehiring them. The judge held that there was an implied term in the workers’ contracts that the right to terminate employment could not be exercised if the aim was to remove a right to ‘retained pay’.”

Frances O’Grady - TUC General Secretary - commented:

“This is a resounding victory in the battle against fire and rehire - and, thanks to USDAW, a win for the union movement. Too many employers think they have free rein to threaten workers in secure jobs with the sack if they don’t accept a new contract on worse pay or conditions. Today’s judgment is an important win against an employer trying to use this scandalous practice to end a promised permanent benefit. But we can’t just rely on the courts to protect working people using current weak laws - we need action from government too. It’s time for ministers to finally deliver on their manifesto promise to protect and enhance workers’ rights - that means stopping fire and rehire without delay.”

Tesco have indicated that they are considering appealing the decision.

In the recent case of Pimlico Plumbers v Gary Smith at the Supreme Court, it was decided that Mr Smith - a heating engineer - is entitled to backdated holiday pay.

Gary Smith had worked on a self-employed basis for Pimlico Plumbers - a London leading maintenance and service company - between 2005 and 2011.

Despite being self-employed, Mr Smith was of the opinion that he should be paid for leave. The company disputed this, stating that Mr Smith was self-employed and that they were not liable for his holiday pay. This resulted in Mr Smith taking the company to an employment tribunal - followed by an employment appeal, both of which rejected his claim.

In finding for Mr Smith, the Supreme Court held him to be a worker for the purpose of the Working Time Regulations - and established a new guiding principle for courts. In reversing the employment tribunal and the employment appeal decisions, the Supreme Court also decided that he should receive compensation for all the unpaid leave he took during his six years of work for Pimlico Plumbers.

Experts say that this decision could also have an impact on other businesses whose workers were previously - and incorrectly - classed as self-employed.

Glenn Hayes - an Employment Partner at Irwin Mitchell - said:

“This is a significant ruling not just for Pimlico Plumbers but all businesses with workers who were previously classified as self-employed. As Mr Smith’s case shows the financial cost of missed holiday pay can be significant and I suspect many organisations will be deeply concerned by this ruling.”

Stephen Ratcliffe - Employment Partner at Baker McKenzie - stated that companies who engage self-employed workers face the risk of legacy claims on underpayment of holiday pay.

He stated:

“For those who engage people on a self-employed basis the risk of claims that the individual was actually a worker or an employee is compounded by the risk of similar legacy claims for holiday pay. Perhaps most significantly, the Government enacted a two-year backstop on these kinds of holiday pay claims, because of concerns over the potential multi-billion-pound bills which employers might otherwise face for many years of holiday pay. This decision opens up scope for a future case to challenge whether that backstop is lawful.

He went on to warn that employers need to take this case seriously, adding:

“With the combination of this case and the proposed focus of the Government’s Single Enforcement Body on holiday pay compliance, employers really need to focus on how they calculate holiday pay now, or else face what may be enormous holiday pay liabilities going back very many years.”

Dave Chaplin - CEO of tax compliance firm IR35 Shield - commented:

“It reinforces the need for firms to correctly classify their workers and provide associated rights that go with being a worker or employee. Moreover, the ruling appears to indicate that unpaid holiday pay will roll over each year, indefinitely, in instances where the employer has not taken the necessary steps to ensure the holiday is taken.”

Research from Direct Line - who provide business insurance and products and services for professional small and micro-businesses and sole traders - have found that 50 per cent of office, micro-business owners and sole traders who have changed their location or adopted hybrid working since the start of the pandemic, have witnessed a positive impact on their turnover.

The research has found that 25 per cent of office and professional micro-business owners and sole traders have changed their location or implemented hybrid working in an effort to reduce the risk of infection - as reported by 13 per cent; saving money on renting an office - as reported by 7 per cent and a confidence in the ability to work remotely - reported by 8 per cent.

The benefits found were:

Working from home benefit (Proportion of small/micro-business owners and sole traders)

• No travel costs (60 per cent)
• More flexible hours (58 per cent)
• Better work/life balance (57 per cent)
• Safer during Covid (9 52 per cent)
• No office space costs (45 per cent)
• Higher productivity (29 per cent)
• Claim expenses for using home (26 per cent)
• Easier childcare (11 per cent)

Apart from the rise in turnover, the change of location and hybrid working resulted in 61 per cent of business owners reporting that they had seen an improvement in their wellbeing and that they were happier at work.

Hybrid working is also influencing business owner plans with 83 per cent stating that in future they intend to have their home as their business registered address.

Some office and professional micro-business owners and sole traders, though, could see that there were some benefits to working in an office.

• 44 per cent felt that working in the office creates a clearer separation between professional and personal lives
• 33 per cent believe it provides better social connections
• 28 per cent feel that it leads to easier meetings and collaboration
• 22 per cent feel it boosts productivity

Only 7 per cent of business owners were concerned about hybrid working but were more worried about:

• The impact on customer demand - 44 per cent
• Tax increases - 33 per cent
• Maintaining/increasing growth - 27 per cent
• Increase in IT requirements - 21 per cent
• Brexit - 19 per cent
• Scaling up their business -12 per cent

Jane Morgan, Product Manager at Direct Line business insurance advised:

“Many office and professional micro-businesses and sole traders have seen positive benefits from flexible working, ranging from improved wellbeing to better turnover, which is great to see. This is influencing how they see their business operating in the future.

As these business owners plan ahead, they should consider the importance of having the right insurance arrangements in place, so that they are prepared to deal with the consequences of unforeseen developments and crises.”

A recent survey of 1,200 employees and employers by MetLife UK - a financial and investments company - has found that 50 per cent of employees would be prepared to sacrifice part of their salary in order to get more personalised employee benefits.

In addition, 74 per cent of workers stated that they would work harder for their employer if they received benefits that were tailored to their needs.

The study showed that 67 per cent of employers surveyed confirmed that their current employee benefits packages are changing to support the needs of their employees - whilst 64 per cent stated that they had been promoting benefits more both during and since the pandemic.

Just under forty per cent of workers stated that if they had intended to change jobs within the next 12 months, they could be persuaded to stay in their current work if their employer showed more care for their mental wellbeing - with 73 per cent saying they would work harder for an employer that cared about their wellbeing.

An important purpose of the report was to understand how workers priorities have changed since the pandemic - giving employers the tools with which to rebuild their employer/employee relationship.

Samantha Johnson - Policy Lead at the Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals - said that the needs of employees were now paramount, but she noted that individual benefit packages would come with ‘complexities in administration and compliance’.

She added:

“It is now central to a payroller's knowledge to understand how to ensure benefits in kind, salary sacrifice and expenses are implemented effectively and correctly.”   

A further significant influence for employees was financial protection - with pensions being ranked at 7.78 out of 10; income protection 7.27 out of 10 and critical illness 6.95 out of 10.

The least important benefits were found to be season ticket loans and gym memberships.

More than 60 per cent of employees would like the ability to form their benefits package together with their employer and 48 per cent stated that they were in discussion with their employer about benefits.

Charles Cotton - Senior Policy Adviser on performance and reward at the CIPD - stated that that employee benefits did not come in ‘one size fits all’. He suggested that employers who were looking to change their offers should start “conducting a review of what they currently offer and speaking to staff about what they value the most”.

He added:

“Taking time to invest not just in employee benefits but also in how you provide and communicate these benefits can improve employee retention, engagement and wellbeing so it’s well worth getting right.”

Adrian Matthews - EB Director at MetLife UK - commented:

“For years businesses have believed that higher pay and job security was the answer to a multitude of problems for employees and while they both remain vital, priorities have changed. Employees are now looking for a much more holistic approach to their benefits package.

Talk of a four-day week and flexible working had started to make their way into our corporate vocabulary before the pandemic but in practice they were largely left to smaller SMEs or start-ups to introduce. Fast forward to 2022 and we’ve seen a seismic shift in the way we work and where we do it. During the pandemic with social venues closed, the ‘softer’ benefits such as gym memberships and Friday drinks became obsolete and while many of us look forward to socialising after work with a colleague again, more functional benefits such as income protection are proving to be more worthwhile to employees going forward.

Ensuring that the benefit packages employers offer suits all members of the team is crucial to protect productivity and encourage loyalty for the long term. Our research found that more than two thirds of employees ‘will work harder for an employer who provides employee benefits that support my individual needs’. Employers must recognise how the needs of their employees will have changed in the past 12 months and work with them to find practical solutions that can be introduced quickly.”

Next, Ikea, Morrisons and Ocado have all announced that they will reduce sick pay for their unvaccinated staff who must isolate after coming into close contact with someone who has Covid.

Employees who have not been vaccinated will however still receive sick pay if they test positive for the virus.

Unvaccinated staff (who in the UK must self isolate for 10 days, unlike those who have had two doses of vaccine) will now only be eligible for Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) during their isolation period - unless there are mitigating circumstances.

Statutory Sick Pay is currently set at £96.35 a week, compared with weekly pay of more than £400 before tax for an average store worker at Ikea and between £6.55 and £9.21 an hour for store sales consultants and stock assistants at Next.

Next have called the decision an “emotive topic” but explained they had been dealing with a higher level of staff absence as a result of the Omicron variant.

Nevertheless, employment lawyers have concerns that companies who introduce such policies could open themselves up to discrimination claims from staff.

Matt Jenkin, Employment Partner at law firm Moorcrofts said:

“….sick pay entitlement for many employees forms part of their contractual terms……In those cases, simply imposing a change to sick pay exposes employers to unfair or constructive dismissal claims. There is also the added headache of the need to process vaccination status for employees which can lead to personal data protection concerns.”

Trade unions also expressed concerns about the move, with Paddy Lillis, General Secretary for retail trade union USDAW, stating:

“Statutory Sick Pay is simply not enough to survive on and workers earning less than £120 per week aren’t entitled to any statutory pay at all.”

According to research by a leading London employment law firm - GQ Littler - the number of Employment Tribunal decisions relating to flexible working cases reached a record high in the year to end of September 2021. That year saw 193 cases, more than a 50% rise from 127 cases in the previous year and also surpassing the previous high of 160 cases in 2018-2019.

The Employment Tribunal decisions have been in regard to a mixture of remote and office-based working and according to GQ Littler, have more probably than not been as a result of employers requiring staff to return to office based working and not agreeing to flexible working. It is felt that disputes regarding the timing of returning to office based workplaces have arisen because of the uncertainty over COVID WFH guidelines, especially amongst employees suffering from health conditions and those with parenting responsibilities.

Sophie Vanhegan of GQ Littler stated:

“The rise in cases relating to flexible working, suggests this is becoming a battleground within some businesses.”

“We may just be seeing the beginning of a tranche of claims taken against employers who’ve failed to deal with flexible working requests in a ‘reasonable manner’.”

In order to turn down a flexible working request from an eligible employee, employers must consider that one or more of the following eight reasons apply to the working arrangements:

• The additional costs would impose a burden.
• The request would have a detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand.
• An inability to re-organise work among existing staff.
• A inability to recruit additional staff.
• Agreeing to the request will have a detrimental impact on quality.
• Agreeing to the request will have a detrimental impact on performance.
• There is insufficient work during the periods the employee proposes to work.
• There are planned structural changes.

According to GQ Littler the commonly used of these reasons is that flexible working would have a “detrimental impact on performance” or a “detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand”. Sophie Vanhegan however warned that employees may begin to “vote with their feet” should employers use “heavy-handed” approaches to flexible working.

She added that employers who were unsure about agreeing to flexible working requests could consider granting these on a trial basis, which would then show definitively whether the arrangement was workable for the business and the employee.

To deal with the multiple trials and prospects uncovered by the pandemic, leadership will be as important as listening and learning at all levels.

It has been highlighted that for many people, juggling their various personal needs while meeting their work requirements has been tricky, with staying healthy proving to be the biggest challenge – followed by managing stress, maintaining productivity and managing workloads.

Prior to the pandemic, it was found that employees in the UK worked the equivalent of £35 billion in unpaid overtime - with this figure increasing during the pandemic.

Despite the benefits created by workers moving to a more remote working culture - where they are exercising and spending more time with family - they have also found negative effects.

Remote working has clouded the distinction between work and home, making it more difficult for workers to ‘switch off’ in their leisure time.

Isolation is also a problem for some - and claims can arise from employees who believe that they are being asked to work extra hours or feel their employer is not providing a duty of care - which includes taking steps to prevent any stress-related illnesses.

Work related stress - if it results in an employee being diagnosed with a psychiatric injury such as depression or post-traumatic stress disorder - could result in an employee having a claim for personal injury, as long-term exposure to stress can lead to a psychiatric disorder diagnosis.

It has therefore been suggested that mental health training for staff would help them recognise when they might be at risk of illness resulting from working long hours.

Constructive dismissal and potential discrimination claims may arise out of requiring employees to work longer hours - or even an assumption by the employer that the employee will work longer hours could put those with disabilities - and who are protected by discrimination law - at a disadvantage, leading to discrimination claims based on age; pregnancy; religion; disability or gender.

Older workers, pregnant women and those who are the primary carers are unlikely to be able to work longer hours and will suffer if long hours become a normal part of the job - just as there is a risk of religious discrimination if employees are asked to work on days which their religion considers holy.

To allay some of the risks, HR could consider:

• The needs of each employee and make needs-based specific arrangements.
• Encourage staff to come forward if they are feeling unwell.
• Investigate employee complaints or any signs of stress.
• Regular meetings to ensure all the above takes place.
• Encourage employees to take annual leave and breaks.

An active organisational culture that finds ways to reduce stress will play a vital part in making the conditions and atmosphere right for workers to thrive.

Experts predict that salaries for professionals are expected to increase by as much as 25 per cent in the first quarter of this year - as companies fight to hold on to their best staff and new starters see significant growth to their pay packets.

A study carried out for Robert Walters’ 2022 UK Salary Guide - an analysis of more than 100,000 jobs posted over the last twelve months - has found that professional services firms are planning to increase their budgets for pay rises by up to 15 per cent. This is the biggest increase since 2008 - and almost three times the rate of inflation. 

At least 5 per cent of the payroll budgets increase will be set aside for existing employees - however, the biggest pay rises will be reserved for new starters. Rises are expected to be for all levels of workers from entry-level and temporary staff through to management and executives. Of the employees polled, 75 per cent said they were very confident about job opportunities this year and 43 per cent of firms stated that salary increases for existing employees were being planned - to line up with higher pay awarded to new staff.

Chris Poole - Managing Director at Robert Walters UK - stated that a pattern had emerged and commented:

“Wage increases above market value for in-demand hires was a recurring theme of the past year. As a result, we saw new starter salaries outstrip those of existing employees.”

He added that this could alienate existing workers, stating:

“The consequences of this will result in wage compression - where existing employees feel their additional experience at the company - over new starters - is no longer valued or has not grown in value over the past two years. Looking at the year ahead we will see more companies raise the pay of their existing employees to sit in line with new starter salaries.”

More than half - 54 percent - stated that they were expecting a pay rise this year after most places had endured a two-year salary freeze, with two thirds of employees threatening to leave their jobs if they were not rewarded fairly.

According to the 2022 UK Salary Guide, the top three values post-pandemic required by professionals are excellent compensation and benefits - 65 per cent; a desirable bonus scheme - as stated by 53 per cent and job security - 40 per cent. Ranking much lower was flexi hours at 29 per cent; remote working 22 per cent and holiday entitlement 20 per cent. Just over half of white-collar workers said that they would not ask about flexi working in an interview as they assume that it would now be offered. A third of workers stated that inspiring colleagues and company culture is an important factor in staying on or taking on a new role. 

Over a third of businesses reported that they are increasing wage rates in order to keep up with inflation.

Chris Poole stated:

“There is little point in companies offering a pay rise as a morale booster if the impact of that increase isn’t really felt in the real world - and so we are increasingly seeing more companies consider the cost-of-living when determining the average pay rise an individual gets.”

But he added:

“Businesses will have to decide how much to raise their salaries to keep their employees, whilst also deciding how much to pass on those costs to their clients and consumers.”

Global Employment lawyers, GQ Littler have said that the rise in the number of claims relating to flexible working requests was probably determined by employees resisting attempts to bring them back into the office. But in addition, employees with childcare responsibilities and/or health conditions could also be contributing to the rise.

Research by GQ Littler found that, in 2019-2020, the number of claims was 127. The previous highest figure was in 2018-2019 when 150 claims were recorded. However. in the past year there was a 52 per cent increase - bringing the number of claims to a record 193.

Uncertainty over the instructions given by the government with reference to working at home or office, appeared to bring a clash between employers and employees.

Sophie Vanhegan - Partner at GQ Littler - said:

“The rise in cases relating to flexible working suggests this is becoming a battleground within some businesses.

We may just be seeing the beginning of a tranche of claims taken against employers who’ve failed to deal with flexible working requests in a ‘reasonable manner’.”

She went on to suggest that businesses should be open-minded when receiving such requests and added:

“When it comes to bringing employees back into the office, employers should be wary of taking a heavy-handed approach. Many sectors are currently experiencing considerable challenges in hiring and retaining talent. At the same time, more candidates are now asking for flexible arrangements at recruitment stage, so may be put off by would-be employers who aren’t open-minded to these requests. Similarly, if existing employees feel that their requests aren’t properly considered, they may vote with their feet.”

Keely Rushmore - Employment Partner at Keystone Law - said that claims brought to the employment tribunals over flexible working are often brought alongside discrimination claims and stated:

"Whilst some employers may not be too concerned about the financial implications of a failure to comply with this requirement, the risks significantly increase where the employee brings a claim of indirect discrimination as well, challenging whether the employer can justify its reasoning. This is most commonly framed as a sex or disability discrimination claim. Given compensation in discrimination claims is uncapped; getting things wrong can be a costly mistake.”

Legislation was introduced to parliament in June 2021 and is due a second reading in the House of Commons in March. If passed this will give employees the right to work flexibly from their first day of employment.

The government guidelines state that an employee can complain to an employment tribunal if the employer does not manage their request in a reasonable manner; wrongly treats the employee’s application as withdrawn; dismiss or treat an employee purely because of their flexible working request or reject an application based on incorrect facts.

HR professionals have been advised to stay aware of their payroll after a bank mistakenly paid out £130m from business accounts on Christmas Day. In addition, it is urged that staff should be encouraged to check their payslips.

The BBC have reported that Santander made a technical error resulting in approximately 75,000 accounts receiving unexpected payments – including some accounts receiving duplicate salary payments.

Samantha Johnson - Policy Lead at the Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals - said:

“Payroll professionals look to their banking providers to deposit wages to employees, and technical errors such as this can create havoc for payroll teams who will no doubt have received an onslaught of queries from employees who were affected.”

She added:

“In addition to encouraging payroll checks within the department, the Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals also encourages everyone to get into the habit of regularly checking their payslips to identify mistakes like this quickly, before it becomes a bigger problem.”

Claire Williams - Chief People Officer at CIPHR, leading UK HR and recruitment software provider - said that if HR and payroll teams were upskilled, manual payroll errors could be avoided.

She stated:

“Have a clear and defined segregation of duties, with appropriate levels of checks along the way… If you are using a payroll bureau or managed service, make the most of technical integrations to avoid further risks of manual errors”.

She added that, whilst errors made by banks are outside payroll managers’ control, processes should be put in place to minimise the risk.

Whether payroll is a part of finance - or HR, the two departments need to work together.  A recent study showed that senior management often miss the problems facing their teams - front line staff were found to see 100 per cent of the problems; middle managers only 74 per cent; team managers 9 per cent and senior executives just 4 per cent.

The BBC were told by Santander that a scheduling error had caused these mistaken payments.  They stated that the error was quickly rectified but that the recipients would have included employees and corporate suppliers, adding that the mistaken payment was funded by Santander reserves. Other banks - including Barclays, HSBC, NatWest and the Co-operative Bank - were in talks with Santander to solve how to reclaim the money.

Although some of the money had been returned, the worry was that if some of the recipients of the mistaken payments had already spent the money, rival banks would be unlikely to return the lost money if it resulted in their customers going into overdraft.

According to the new Empowering Employee Wellbeing in the New World of Work report from Achievers Workforce Institute - the research and insights arm of Achievers, global leader in employee voice and recognition solutions that builds sustainable performance in organisations - half of employees feel stressed and few are getting the support they need, despite HR beliefs about wellbeing at work.

The research surveyed more than 2,000 employed respondents and 950 HR leaders from Australia, Canada, UK and USA, finding that only 20 per cent of employees say they feel physically and mentally healthy; only 17 per cent feel their physical wellbeing is supported by their employer and only 18 per cent feel their employer supports their mental wellbeing.

Only one in five employees feel a sense of physical and mental wellbeing, with their engagement; belonging; productivity and absenteeism being impacted. Of the HR leaders polled, 47 per cent say that their company supports employee wellbeing, but just 24 per cent of employees agree.

Almost half - 48 per cent of employees - feel stressed and of that group, 63 per cent say their stress is related to the pandemic. 

Employees who feel that their wellbeing is not supported by their employer are twice as likely to say they regularly think about looking for a job elsewhere. However, organisations that are focused on employee wellbeing and can bridge the gap between HR and employees are likely to improve retention.

Dr. Natalie Baumgartner - Achievers Chief Workforce Scientist - said:

“As we look ahead at the weeks and months to come, it’s easy to think that the worst is behind us with vaccinations on the rise and many businesses starting a phased return to the office. However, the wellbeing research from Achievers Workforce Institute shows that stress remains high, with COVID-19 as a key driver. Almost one third of employees surveyed have taken leave due to stress, and this is even higher for marginalised groups. HR leaders need to understand how and why marginalised groups are experiencing heightened stress, otherwise inequities will deepen and result in cultural erosion over time.”

Twice as many HR leaders - 47 per cent against 24 per cent employees - say their organisation supports employee wellbeing, including mental wellbeing and, in addition, 40 per cent of HR leaders feel their company offers employees resources to support their mental wellbeing, but only 18 per cent of the employees feel supported in managing their mental wellbeing. This suggests that either the support is not being communicated, leaving employees unaware of available support - or it is not having the desired impact.

Dr. Baumgartner added:

“Closing the gap between HR action and employee perception should be mission critical for HR and business leaders. While HR may believe they are taking the right steps to support employees in this area, if individuals don’t experience that support as effective, then the effort is not meeting the goal. The key step is to ask employees for their input on both existing initiatives, and with regards to which programmes would be beneficial to their physical and mental wellbeing. This employee insight is crucial to implementing support that is experienced as effective and impactful.”

Despite AI being regarded as disruptive - but maybe not in a bad way - fewer than 25 per cent of businesses report that it has led to job losses.

This is according to new research - based on a survey of over 750 AI-enabled businesses - and published by academics at the University of Warwick and the University of Sussex.

The study is the first survey of its kind in the UK devoted to capturing the introduction of AI and other new technologies in organisations and to be concentrated on jobs.

The report states that less than a quarter of companies believe that AI has led to net job losses since it was introduced - and a similar number stated that AI had created additional jobs. More than 50 per cent of participating companies said that they witnessed no overall change.

When compared to any other technology, AI was found to have a significant effect on job numbers as with the introduction of AI it is said to be 28.4 per cent more likely to be linked to job creation - and 26.6 per cent more likely to be linked to job destruction. 

Dr Wil Hunt - Research Fellow at the University of Sussex Business School - said:

“Discussions about AI’s potential impact on jobs have tended to focus on potential job loses as AI is increasingly capable of automating complex tasks. And while there does seem to be some evidence of that, our research shows that AI is as likely to lead to net job creation in companies introducing AI as it is to lead to net destruction. While we can’t say for sure how many jobs will be created or destroyed from the research, it is likely that the automation of some tasks may mean fewer people are needed to perform some jobs, but that increased productivity may reduce costs stimulating sales and demand for workers overall. This of course is likely to depend upon the specific AI-technology used and what employers hope to achieve by using it. While our study data precedes the impacts of Coronavirus, adoption of these kinds of technology is only likely to accelerate following the start of the pandemic as more and more work moves online.”

Sudipa Sarkar - Senior Research Fellow in the Institute for Employment Research at the University of Warwick - stated:

“Advances in AI have reignited debates about the impact of technology on the future of work, raising concerns about massive job losses. However, current evidence supporting this is beset by methodological limitations and there is very little analysis of what actually happens in organisations introducing AI-enabled technologies. Drawing on a new UK employer survey, our study reveals that organisations introducing AI have higher rates of both job creation and destruction compared to organisations introducing non-AI technology. The findings of our study also suggest a slightly higher association between AI introduction and job creation than job destruction, but the difference, when tested is not statistically significant. This implies that AI is equally likely to be associated with job creation as job destruction compared to other non-AI technology.”

This new study - receiving 759 eligible responses - plainly reveals what is happening within organisations that have specifically adopted AI-enabled technologies and allows employers to give a clearer picture about what is happening within a company.

Professor Chris Warhurst - Director of the Institute for Employment Research at the University of Warwick - said:

“In the absence of a natural experiment and longitudinal data it is impossible to attempt to estimate the causal effect of AI adoption on employment creation or reduction. Instead, our research demonstrates how such a methodology helps understand the extent of AI use within organisations at a given point in time and is a step towards understanding how the introduction of AI-enabled technology can have different implications for organisations compared to other technologies.”

Nuffield Health have revealed the outcome of a study, showing that 80 per cent of employees feel that working from home has had a negative impact on their mental health.

Many businesses continue to operate in their usual manner without needing staff to be present in the office. The vast majority of the survey respondents - 80 per cent - who have been working remotely said that they are just as, or more productive and motivated at home.  Whilst working at home has distractions, the flexibility it provides means many employees are at least as productive than in the office.

With regard to the mental health of employees working at home, it was found that - as reflected in the findings of top mental health charities and services - two in five employees surveyed shared the opinion that lockdown and working from home have both had a negative effect on their mental health.

Over 40 per cent of employees report feeling disconnected to their business and culture whilst working from home - and a staggering 60 per cent of employees reported that their employers have not done anything to keep colleagues connected whilst working remotely.

Mental health charity, Mind, also found that 60 per cent of adults stated that their mental health deteriorated during the initial period of lockdown restrictions from April to mid-May 2020, whilst working remotely, making it clear that being away from the usual sights and sounds of the business can connect with businesses faltering.

It is suggested that something as simple as a Zoom quiz; virtual coffee morning or online teambuilding exercise can assist in helping employees to maintain relations with their employer.

Findings from O C Tanner’s 2022 Global Culture Report - which analysed the perspectives of over 38,000 employees, leaders, HR practitioners and executives from twenty-one countries around the world, including over 2,500 from the UK - found that 83 per cent believe that those who work full time remotely cannot meaningfully connect with workplace culture.

Of the UK respondents, 20 per cent believe that two days each week in the office is sufficient to feel connected to the culture - with 18 per cent feeling that three days is preferable and 16 per cent stating that just one day is necessary. Of the remainder, 8 per cent stated five days per week; 8 per cent said one day every two weeks; 7 per cent cited four days and one day per month was suggested by 6 per cent.

Robert Ordever - MD of workplace culture expert, O.C. Tanner Europe - stated:

“It’s no surprise that workers can see the difficulties of developing a strong connection to organisational culture when fully remote working. Being physically together in the office allows for collaboration, innovation and connection – all harder to achieve at a distance. In fact, the office is vital for facilitating social interaction, storytelling and memory making, all of which nurture a strong workplace culture.”  

He added:

“For the sake of organisational culture as well as overall business success, it’s important that a balance remains between home and office working, avoiding a shift towards total remote working. Offices are now cultural incubators, providing employees with the best opportunity to connect to the organisation, their leaders and each other. Should offices be taken away, corporate culture could be irreversibly damaged.”

Employment experts have been asked what they have learned about changes to working practices over the last 12 months. 

In fact, when 2,046 workers were surveyed by YouGov earlier this month, 51 per cent stated that that would consider leaving their company if hybrid working (or flexible working) was removed.

Over the last decade, hybrid working has gained in popularity and during the pandemic this popularity has accelerated to make hybrid working the preferred choice for many workers.

Some organisations have experienced success, with others having had an uncertain transition - but hybrid working has taught some valuable lessons. Many businesses are incorporating their employees desire for flexibility and rebranding as ‘work from anywhere’.

A panel of HR and employment experts were asked about what they learnt from the last 12 months - and what they considered businesses should take forward into 2022. 

Daisy Hooper - Head of Policy at the Chartered Management Institute - stated:

"One of the key things we've all learned in 2021 has been the value of trust in our working relationships.”

She says that having a hybrid - or remote working policy - requires a strong level of trust between employer and employee.  

However, she adds that not everyone can manage teams remotely and mentions how “we've also seen a realisation that some managers will need training and guidance on how best to handle their teams who are working in a hybrid or home-based model.”

Gemma Dale - Lecturer at Liverpool John Moores University - said:

“Most people only really began to work in a hybrid way from the summer, before it was interrupted with new home working guidance in December.”

She also commented on employee reluctance to return to their offices and says this is partly because of ongoing anxiety about Covid.  It appears that employees are questioning why they need to return to offices.

Gemma Dale added:

“This is a key challenge for HR when the current work-from-home period ends; how do we create meaningful face-time in offices, helping people to be more intentional about their time in physical workspace?”

Ben Willmott - Head of Public Policy at the CIPD - commented that in addition to hybrid working, employers should consider the different flexible working arrangements they offer.  This would ensure that everyone can benefit from flexibility - and not just those who can work from home.

He stated:

“Over the course of the year, many businesses have been able to test and develop effective home and hybrid working practices.”

However, he warned:

“Organisations will need to ensure they consult with staff as they go, to figure out arrangements that work best for both the business and employees”.

Alan Lewis - Partner at Constantine Law - said:

“Some employers have said they do not expect to go back to having staff in the workplace full time.”

He also pointed out that:

“The employer has little control over who is viewing data where staff work remotely.”

He stressed the importance of training about confidentiality, which “cannot be emphasised enough” - as well as being prepared to take any appropriate disciplinary action.

Alan Lewis also advised that “health and safety implications have to be addressed effectively, including carrying out risk assessments… providing the right type of equipment, perhaps even a special kit to enable remote working”.

KPMG and the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC) have released their latest UK Report on Jobs survey. It showed a further sharp increase in hiring activity midway through the fourth quarter, with both permanent placement and temp billings continuing to rise strongly.

The survey - which drew its data from a panel of around 400 UK recruitment and employment consultancies - showed there were marked increases in vacancies for both permanent and short-term staff, which combined with a substantial drop in overall candidate supply is thought to have led to further increases in starting pay in an effort to attract and secure workers. Notably, the rate of starting salary inflation hit a fresh series record in November, even though it has risen each month since March 2021. Temp pay softened only slightly from October's all-time record.

Neil Carberry, Chief Executive of the REC, said:

“Today’s figures emphasise again how far we have come this year – it is certainly a great Christmas if you’re looking for a job. This is always the busiest part of the year for recruiters, but demand for new staff across the autumn has been exceptional. Because of this high demand, starting salaries and temp rates continue to rise, making it even more attractive to be looking for a new opportunity in 2022. Hiring companies will need to make sure they get their offer right – not just on pay – and take an inclusive approach if they are to avoid losing out.”

The data also showed that growth of demand was considerably stronger for private sector workers than public sector staff. The biggest increase in vacancies was recorded for permanent roles in the private sector, with the IT & Computing industry posting the steepest increase, followed by Hotel and Catering. The lowest upturn was for permanent staff in the public sector.

Claire Warnes, Head of Education, Skills and Productivity at KPMG UK, stated:

“The confidence of businesses to hire remains reassuringly robust. We’ve seen nine months of growth in permanent placements and rising vacancies for the past 10 months as the economy bounces back. The data points to a strong end to the year, but that hunger to expand could be tested as the jobs market becomes ever tighter. The pace of demand for workers is running far faster than supply can keep up with, which is draining an already diminished pool of available talent and feeding into inflationary pressures.”

However, in the last few days positivity over rising employment rates and the hiring spree over the past few months looks like it could be cut short, as the Omicron variant of Covid-19 threatens economic recovery.

According to a survey of more than 8,227 people by Entrepreneur Seminar - an education and mentoring programme - it was found that 80 per cent of employees were not satisfied with their jobs. Those surveyed were between the ages of 25-55 years - with a 60 per cent male, 40 per cent female gender split.

The majority - 78 per cent - were employed in small and medium-sized enterprises and of those, 60 per cent were in middle management roles; 27 per cent were of junior and entry level, with senior management accounting for 13 per cent.

Despite 82 per cent being fearful of an impending recession - brought about due to the pandemic - 68 per cent of workers were considering leaving their jobs and setting up their own businesses, maybe encouraged by the economists more optimistic predictions of a recovery and a surge in economic growth.

During the pandemic, many employees reassessed their priorities and career objectives, which led to 58 per cent of those surveyed stating that they were considering a change of skills and 55 per cent saying that it had made them more likely to start their own business. 

The survey found that the majority - 72 per cent - of workers wanting to start a business was with the intention of increasing their financial wealth despite the fact that 60 per cent of new businesses fail in the first five years. Lack of capital is often the reason for the failure - 95 per cent of those surveyed admitted to funding of less than £10,000 with 25 per cent only able to invest £5,000.

The biggest barriers to starting a business were found to be lack of business knowledge, as cited by 49 per cent of those surveyed; 32 per cent said lack of funding and 10 per cent lacked confidence in their business idea.

These findings correspond with data produced by HMRC, who report that more businesses were created in March 2021 than in any other month since records began. In 2020, a 14 per cent increase on the previous year brought the total of new businesses started to 835,000.

Martin Warner - founder of Entrepreneur Seminar - stated:

“This is an unprecedented era of opportunity for entrepreneurs and the pandemic has provided many aspiring entrepreneurs with an opportunity to pause and reflect on their careers. The world is open to new ideas, opportunities, and change, but jumping into entrepreneurship is a brave decision, regardless of the times. 

The most important thing for anyone starting their own business is to get the right advice and mentoring. With that support in place, anyone has the potential to run a great business, but without it the risk of failure increases significantly. 

It is heartening to see so many people looking to embark on the journey of entrepreneurship because small businesses are the backbone of the UK economy. But they will face challenges they have never encountered before and going alone requires not only courage, but a willingness to learn from others who have successfully completed that journey.”

The CIPD - the professional body for HR and people development - has released a new report entitled “What should an effective sick pay system look like?”  which claims the UK’s Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) system is “broken” and examines what reforms are needed. 

SSP was introduced in 1983 to provide a pay to employees unable to work due to short-term illness and in 1986 an employers’ liability to pay SSP was extended from eight weeks  to 28 weeks of sickness absence in each tax year.

In 1991, the rate of SSP that an employer could claim in reimbursement was lowered to 80% and in 1994 it was abolished for all but small employers.  

The eligibility criteria for SSP payments are that an individual must be an ‘employee’ or agency worker, earn on average at least £120 per week and have been ill or self-isolating for at least seven consecutive days. From the fourth day of sickness, SSP is paid at the rate of £96.35 per week (for April 2021 to April 2022) for a maximum of 28 weeks but this is raised annually every April.

To compile its report, the CIPD surveyed a sample of employers in its regular Labour Market Outlook survey, then consulted a range of stakeholders including HR directors, lawyers and policy experts through a CIPD Policy Forum roundtable.

Of the 1,000 employers surveyed  by the CIPD, nearly two thirds (62%) think the UK’s current statutory sick pay (SSP) rate of £96.35 per week is too low and should be increased – with 57% of small companies agreeing. In response, the CIPD has suggested the government raise the amount of SSP to the same as the national minimum wage or national living wage. For example, for someone aged 23 or over this would be £62.37 a day.

Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted those that are unable to access the scheme. The self-employed and those earning less than £120 a week do not qualify and these equate to around 5.6 million people, or 17.2% of the workforce. The CIPD suggests there is therefore a need for the self-employed to contribute to some form of income replacement support that they can benefit from when sick.

Rachel Suff, senior employment relations adviser at the CIPD, stated:

“The UK’s SSP system has been broken for a long time and the pandemic has only highlighted its failure to protect the lowest paid and most vulnerable members of our society.”

The CIPD’s recommendations based on the survey results are that the UK Government extend protection to those on the lowest incomes and act now to expand eligibility for SSP by abolishing the lower earnings limit (LEL) and the level of SSP is raised to be closer to the equivalent of someone earning the National Minimum Wage/National Living Wage (based on a pro rata daily rate covering time taken off work sick, for example, this would mean that if someone aged 23 or above normally works seven hours per day, their pro rata daily SSP rate would be £62.37 (7 x £8.91).

According to a survey by Spencer Stuart - an executive head-hunter company - women have passed men to now hold most non-executive director positions.However, the report also showed that almost 90 per cent of executive directors in the top 150 FTSE companies are male. This highlights the fact that men still dominate the management roles. A review of governance practice - excluding investment trusts - found that women now represent 51 per cent of all non-executive directors which is up from 18 per cent a decade ago.As stated by Spencer Stuart - for the first time since tracking began, 442 women occupied non-executive positions whilst those occupied by men numbered 422. It was also found that women occupied 36 per cent of all board roles - up from 34 per cent in 2020. But the analysis also found that 86 per cent of executive directors were male. Men held all four senior board positions in sixty-four of the top 150 companies, with no increase of women holding executive director positions over the last year. Tessa Bamford - leader of Spencer Stuart’s board and chief executive practice - stated:“…progress is limited to non-executive directors - the number of female executives in the boardroom and on executive committees remains very low.” She then called upon companies to continue focussing their efforts on developing female talent within the executive ranks.Shriti Vadera - chair of insurer Prudential - said that “diversity of thought and experience is paramount for the successful functioning of a board.” She added that the report not only highlighted the progress made but also showed “…where we need to go further and faster to achieve meaningful change.” According to the analysis, 61 per cent of FTSE 150 firms had at least one minority ethnic director sitting on their board, but 39 per cent had no minority ethnic representation. The proportion of first-time board directors from minority ethnic backgrounds rose from 17 per cent to 25 per cent during the last year.

The research identified that most directors with ethnic minority backgrounds do not hold leadership positions on the board - only one board chair amongst those surveyed was minority ethnic.Sandra Kerr CBE - race equality director at Business in the Community - stated:“Since mentorship and sponsorship opportunities have declined since 2018, we need more leaders to step up and support employees of ethnic minority backgrounds.” Dr Scarlett Brown - corporate governance lead at the CIPD - commented that more companies need to collect data on the diversity of their workforce, including disability, gender, sexual orientation, social background and cognitive diversity. She stated:“The real challenge is increasing the number of women in leadership roles, where progress is still low.”  But she added:“Diversity at board level - which is vital for effective decision making - also needs to encompass more than just gender or ethnicity.”

A new TUC poll - conducted by YouGov - of 903 HR managers, has revealed that 70 per cent said flexible working could work for their business.

The poll shows that employers attitudes towards flexible working arrangements have decidedly changed during the pandemic, with 49 per cent of respondents saying that - because of the pandemic - greater flexible working could work for their business. Added to that are 21 per cent who say that their business already allowed significant flexible working before the pandemic. 

Only 24 per cent of the HR managers polled said that - following the pandemic - they will not be permitting any significant flexible working at their company or business.

Regarding job adverts, the poll revealed that 62 per cent of the HR professionals stated that they could either include specific information about the pattern of home or remote working available in each role, or that they already did this. In addition, 59 per cent of HR managers polled said it would be easy to include specific information in each job advert about the types of hours-based flexible working arrangements available - or they already did this.

Peter Cheese - Chief Executive at the CIPD - commented that flexible working was here to stay, meaning that businesses need to discover what works best for them and their employees, adding that in a tight labour market, flexible working could prove crucial for employers facing recruitment difficulties.

However, he cautioned that it was vital for employers to consider all their workforce in offering a range of flexible working options - from day one of employment - to include flexitime; compressed hours; job sharing and term-time working.

He said:

“This means that everybody can benefit from flexibility, not just those who are able to work from home.”

Despite proposing several legislative changes, including giving employees the right to request flexible working from the first day of their employment, the government has made it clear that firms should still be able to reject flexible working requests if they have a business reason for doing so.

The TUC is asking the government to make flexible working a legal right from day one of the employment - unless the employer can justify the reason it is not possible. They are also asking for employees to have the right to appeal a rejection - with no limit on the number of times they can request flexible arrangements.

Frances O’Grady - TUC General Secretary - said:

“During the pandemic, many people were able to work flexibly or from home for the first time. Staff and bosses both saw the benefits this flexibility can bring, but the current system is broken. A right to ask for flexible working is no right at all – especially when bosses can turn down requests with impunity. 

Attitudes to all types of flexible working changed significantly in the pandemic. Ministers need to take advantage of this – and make sure all workers can get the flexible working they need. 

Flexible working is how we keep mums in work and close the gender pay gap. It enables dads to spend more time with their kids. It helps disabled workers and carers stay in their jobs – and in employment. 

Ministers must change the law - all jobs must be advertised with the possible flexible options clearly stated, and all workers must have the legal right to work flexibly from their first day in a job.”

In a survey for Bond Solon - a leading training organisation for expert witnesses - more than 40 per cent of witnesses who had been cross-examined in a remote session stated that barristers are less aggressive than when in the courtroom.

Mark Solon - the solicitor-founder of the organisation - stated:

“It is more difficult for the cross-examining lawyer to control the flow of the courtroom encounter online.”

He added that barristers “may also have found aggressive courtroom dramatics do not actually work online. A booming voice, intimidating stare or a look of disbelief appear silly on a small screen.”

He went on to warn that in the future, advocates “may need a more forensic approach and find more screen-appropriate methods of disconcerting a witness to discredit their evidence. They will need new online advocacy skills and experts will have to keep up.”

Of those who had given oral evidence online, it was found that approximately half thought that it was given as much significance as when in a live hearing.

Mark Solon speculated that the drawbacks of technology may have added to increased attention, remarking:

“This may be because a judge or jury needs to be very attentive as the image of the witness is in two dimensions and looks much smaller than when seen in person in the courtroom, and the sound may not be as clear.”

Courtroom experts are unwavering in their desire for improvements in the digital revolution in the courts if it is to continue without damaging justice.

Mark Solon added:

“It is crucial that the technology used by courts is of high quality so those involved can hear and see clearly. Interruptions by an impatient cross-examining lawyer also appear ruder on a TV monitor, and lawyers may have learnt to be silent as a witness speaks, and this could give the impression to the witness that their evidence is given greater weight.”

According to the survey, experts said that – in terms of lower costs and greater convenience – the use of remote hearings are an advantage. Over 60 per cent of expert witnesses reported conducting roughly half of their work remotely during the pandemic and Mark Solon describes that as a “seismic shift from before Covid. It has implications for how investigations and examinations are conducted, how instructions are taken and how evidence is given.”

He stated:

“This also means that the time saved can allow the expert to have more time for their day job and the ability to take more instructions.”

HR have several questions to ponder on the issue of whether employers can insist that staff take the Covid vaccine when it is offered to them.

At present there is no legal basis for forcing people to get vaccinated and therefore reliance must be on persuading them of the safety of the vaccine and the fact that it is in their interest to accept it.

The government has issued guidance to frontline healthcare workers specifying the benefits of being vaccinated - reduced chance of catching Covid or becoming seriously unwell if they do and less likelihood of infecting their friends, family and any vulnerable people in their care. As the government are unable to legally compel people to be vaccinated, it is means that employers cannot force the issue either.

However, Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 requires employers to take all reasonably practicable steps to reduce workplace risks to their lowest practicable level. To reduce the risk of catching or spreading the virus to others at work, staff should be strongly encouraged to get vaccinated. If it can be shown that asking staff to accept the vaccine is a reasonable management instruction and it is refused, disciplinary action may be justified.

Employment lawyers do not agree about whether it is a reasonable request to ask staff to be vaccinated and then to act against anyone who refuses. The argument hinges on whether vaccination will protect other members of staff or people they are in contact with - but advice from both the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the government is that vaccinated people are much less likely to transmit the virus to others, making it likely to be reasonable to instruct frontline staff to be vaccinated.

Consideration also needs to be given to the fact that some staff will not yet have been offered the vaccine - but advance warning to them of the company approach to ‘jab or no jab’ would be sensible.

Staff may be worried about having the vaccine - this is referred to by the World Health Organisation as ‘vaccine hesitancy’ and is considered as one of the top ten threats to global health. This should be discussed with the people concerned and advice given to them as to where they can obtain reliable, impartial information before any sort of action is instigated against them.

Some of the staff who refuse to be vaccinated will be protected under the Equality Act 2010 - which covers religion; disapproval of the vaccine because animal products were used in the development and race, age, sex and disability - and if challenged, employers will have to justify their approach as it will potentially be indirectly discriminatory to insist on vaccination. Other solutions, such as permanent homeworking, could be considered.

Before dismissal, employees should be warned and given a final opportunity to comply. Dismissal should be on notice and ideally, legal advice should be sought before any action is taken against anyone refusing to be vaccinated.

Much depends on whether asking them to be vaccinated is a reasonable management instruction.

In the case of Martine Robinson and Liverpool University Hospital NHS Foundation and Dr Chris Mercier in the County Court at Liverpool, the judge ordered expert witness Dr Mercier to pay £50,000 in costs, following the ruling that the witness had acted in a wholly unreasonable and negligent manner.

This is a warning to all expert witnesses to ensure that they only accept instructions on matters within their expertise; to help and assist the Court on matters within their expertise; to keep their duty to the Court under constant review and to understand that their duty to the Court is theirs alone and that it is not for another party to police that duty.

The background to the case was that a claim for dental negligence had been brought by Ms Robinson against the hospital trust - for treatment that she had received at Aintree Hospital. It concluded with Ms Robinson withdrawing her claim after evidence was given by the expert witness, Dr Mercier.

In the ruling the judge stated:

"I formed the view during trial that Dr Mercier was not making any efforts to assist the court, but instead wilfully sticking to his case theory irrespective of the questions asked or the evidence given. His evidence was grossly unhelpful and wholly unreliable in my judgement. I will not at this stage detail examples of the same, because it is not relevant to this application. The application before me is predicated on the specific assertion that it should have been obvious to Dr Mercier at the outset, and at various stages throughout the proceedings, that he was not the appropriate expert to opine on the management and treatment afforded to the claimant on 8th November 2016."

The judge concluded that, but for Dr Mercier’s report the claim would not have been brought and added:

“All costs claimed within the defendant’s cost budget are therefore caused by Dr Mercier’s flagrant disregard for his duty to the court. A public body has been put to considerable expense in financing costly litigation that should not have been brought.

Although it is not part of my considerations, I observe that a hard-working oral and maxillofacial surgeon was maligned in public and undoubtedly caused significant distress by the actions of Dr Mercier."

Simon Berney-Edwards - EWI Chief Executive Officer, said:

"This case once again highlights the importance of those giving expert evidence understanding their role and their duty to the court. That absolutely includes highlighting where a matter is out of your area of expertise as Dr Mercier should have done. Members of the Expert Witness Institute sign up to a code of professional conduct and ensure they understand their role and duty to the court.”

A study conducted by the Recruitment & Employment Confederation (REC) found that Britain’s job market is experiencing record numbers of vacancies, with a total of 2.68 million active postings.

In the first week of November around 221,000 new job adverts were posted and the REC feels that this increase shows no signs of slowing down in the run up to Christmas.

The study showed that the largest increase in vacancies was amongst driving instructors, prison officers and some key workers such as forklift truck drivers, secondary school teachers and care workers. In comparison, construction sector roles such as painters and decorators, roofers and bricklayers had decreased, which was thought to be in response to supply chain delays which is putting constraints on the building industry.

Industry experts feel the increase in job movement could be because many employees had been waiting to move due to uncertainty caused by the pandemic, whilst some over 50s had now decided that it is the time to retire - the Office for National Statistics Labour Force Survey recently found that more older workers had left the workforce after being made redundant., whereas Jonathan Boys, Labour Market Economist at the CIPD put the number of older workers were taking early retirement or entering inactivity down to illness or disability.

He stated:

“Worryingly, there’s a trend of people leaving the labour market completely, transitioning from employment to a state of inactivity,”

Kate Palmer, HR Advice and Consultancy Director at Peninsula, said that recruitment managers “must proactively identify their target employees’ priorities and tailor their job advertisements to include these areas”.

Whereas some experts felt that these record number of vacancies just might give employees the better say in pay negotiations.

According to a new European study by global workplace creation experts Unispace, 67 per cent of UK and Irish office workers are reluctant to return to the office after the pandemic.

The detailed survey of 3,000 office workers, 2,750 employers in leadership roles at businesses employing over fifty persons - and interviews with global senior leaders in Real Estate, HR and Operations - also revealed that 71 per cent of business leaders themselves are reluctant to physically return to the workplace.

When questioned as to the reasons behind the reluctance to return to the office, commuting was shown to be their biggest concern - unsurprising after having experienced a period of saving money on travel expenses and gaining time not travelling to and from work. However, 75 per cent of respondents stated that if employers agreed to pay their travel costs, it would encourage them back to the workplace.

The research also revealed that 41 per cent of workers feel they were more productive in the workplace than at home; 93 per cent stated that they would like to see changes made to their current place of work to make it more appealing and 25 per cent said they would like to see more private spaces available. Others - 23 per cent - wanted a better layout, whilst 22 per cent would prefer more amenities.

The study disclosed that UK and Irish employers had taken various steps to attract employees back to the office, but these are not in line with what the employees want. Some respondents stated that a number of new measures have been introduced with 40 per cent citing safety protocols; 36 per cent offering flexible starting times and 32 per cent providing separate spaces for collaboration and quiet working.

Lawrence Mohiuddine - CEO EMEA at Unispace - stated:

“The UK and Ireland were two of the few countries polled across Europe where employers were more reluctant to return than their employees. While we can certainly see a clear trend in concerns around the commute for workers in these two locations, the mismatch between the incentives that businesses are implementing - and what employees really want to feel encouraged back to the workplace - does suggest some employers only understand their workforce at a surface-level.

With so many employees indicating a desire for workplace improvements, there is clearly a need to re-think workspaces across the UK and Ireland to encourage employees back.”

Following the success of the Hampton-Alexander Review, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy have announced that a new chair will be appointed to lead the FTSE Women Leaders Review, which aims to increase opportunities for women on boards of the UK’s top listed companies over the next 5 years.

In the UK in 2011, only 9% of women served on FTSE 350 boards. The Hampton-Alexander Review, which ran from 2015 to 2020, aimed to have women holding 33% of board positions by 2020. However, in its final report which was published earlier in 2021, it was revealed that this target had been exceeded, as 34.3% of FTSE 350 board positions were then held by women. Additionally, female representation was at 36.2 per cent in FTSE 100 companies and 33.2 per cent in FTSE 250 companies.

While it is not yet known the precise targets of the new review, some have suggested that it could focus on the roles women hold on FTSE boards and also aim to boost the number of Executive Director positions held by women.

Business minister Paul Scully has urged that:

“Companies shouldn’t take their foot off the gas. Evidence shows that more diverse businesses are more successful businesses – the case is too strong to ignore.”

The review is already welcoming submissions of gender diversity data from FTSE 350 companies, who can submit their gender diversity data via the FTSE Women Leaders Review online portal by 30th November 2021, and the next annual report is due to be published in February 2022.

A study from HR group CIPD has found that 49 per cent of the 1,502 professionals - from Ireland and the UK - who took part in The People Profession 2021 survey from CIPD in association with Workday, have had to upskill due to their workplace's response to the pandemic.

A further 11 per cent have had to learn entirely new HR skills in different areas of work to enable them to effectively respond to changes brought about by the crisis.

This contrasts dramatically with what HR professionals said last year - when 83 per cent of respondents to a survey believed they had the right skills to deal with any challenges.

Peter Cheese - CIPD Chief Executive - said:

“2020 was an exceptional year for our profession”

He added:

“The difficult external circumstances put great demand on all of us, and people professionals have been at the forefront of the organisational response, supporting people, implementing rapid changes, adapting and learning. It’s great to see so many colleagues recognising the need to strengthen their skills and ensure they have the right expertise to guide and make an impact in their organisations in an ever-changing world of work.”

After being asked about the contribution and impact people functions have on organisations, it was found that 52 per cent of respondents recognise links between HR practices and business outcomes that are agreed across their organisation; 58 per cent have a clear understanding of what success looks like in organisational outcomes and 73 per cent work collaboratively across business functions to meet organisational needs. A further 52 per cent feel they add financial value by supporting organisational effectiveness, with 40 per cent believing the standing of HR and people processionals has increased because of the work they have done during the pandemic.

Peter Cheese added:

“We’ve always been aware of the vital role our profession plays, but the pandemic has accelerated a focus to putting people much more front and centre in the business agenda and for our profession to step forward and demonstrate their skills and abilities. Now is the time to see people professionals build on the fantastic work they’ve done over the last year and continue driving change in their organisations as we continue to navigate the pandemic and the changing future of work and working practices.”

Mary Connaughton - Director of CIPD Ireland - highlighted one difference between responses from the UK and Ireland, saying:

"Among our UK colleagues, 41 per cent of respondents said that supporting line managers is a priority area for improvement across their HR capability, but the figure stands at just 29 per cent here. This is a source of concern as a lack of capability among line managers could form a barrier to the maximum contribution of HR practices to the organisation. We would encourage members and their employers to devote more energy towards supporting line managers with this part of their role".

Michael Douroux - Global Vice President, Northern Europe and South Africa at Workday - said:

"Those in the people profession have really risen to the moment in the last year, helping businesses and employees alike to overcome an incredibly challenging period. Amidst huge uncertainty and a fast-changing environment, leaders have helped people stay informed, engaged and supported. As we all strive to recover and make the world of work better, applying what we’ve learned over the last year, it’s clear that a data-driven agile culture is vital - leading to better-informed decisions and fewer surprises along the way."

According to new research from Legal & General Retail Retirement and the Centre for Economics and Business Research, 11 per cent of workers - approximately 20,000 - over 50 years of age, have disappeared from the workforce after being made redundant.

The report - which looks at the experiences of the over 50s - raises serious concerns about the impact of redundancy on the age diversity of the UK workforce. Among the over 50s experiencing redundancy in the past five years, 62 percent felt that their age was a contributing factor.

From 2007 to the second quarter of 2021, the average rate of redundancy among the over 50s has been nearly a fifth higher than for the under 50s, with the study showing that older workers - on average - have been 17 per cent more likely to face redundancy than their younger colleagues.

This has had serious consequences for retirement savings, with those affected saving £29,000 less into their pension pot, reducing the amount needed for a comfortable retirement lifestyle by 18 per cent or £1,900 annually.

Of those employees over 50 years, 9 per cent having experienced reduced hours; 7 per cent a salary cut; 12 per cent furlough and 8 per cent redundancy - it is estimated that they will suffer a reduction of £3,100.

However, despite the redundancy rate being higher, the unemployment rate for over 50-year-olds is inclined to be lower than that of the rest of the workforce. The Office for National Statistics Labour Force Survey finds the reason for this is because more older workers leave the workforce after being made redundant.

Andrew Kail - CEO, Legal & General Retail Retirement - stated:

“The disappearance of the older worker presents a serious challenge to employers. Not only are they the fastest growing employee population but they also have a wealth of experience that UK employers will miss out on if this trend continues. As we all adjust to new ways of working in the wake of Covid-19, where ‘retirement’ will be different for many people, it’s crucial that older workers are not forgotten.

The Government’s planned investment of additional funds to get over 50s back into work is a step in the right direction, but there is much more to be done to promote an age diverse workforce. We are living and working longer than ever before and the reality is, many of us will be relying on working longer to save for retirement. It’s therefore vital that older workers feel protected in the workplace, and not at greater risk of redundancy. As an industry, we also need to encourage people to prioritise saving throughout their working life, so finances have time to grow, enabling retirees to enjoy their desired standard of living.”

A spokesperson from the government stated that their statistics show that there are 250,000 more over 50s on the payroll than a year ago and added:

“Older workers are a huge asset to companies and there are currently almost nine million workers aged over 50 on employer payrolls – an increase of more than a quarter of a million compared to a year ago. Our recent £500m expansion to the Plan for Jobs is helping hundreds of thousands of older workers to retrain, build new skills and get back into work, including through our 50 Plus: Choices offer, the Sector-Based Work Academy Programme and our Job Entry Targeted Support scheme. The government is taking steps to help older workers to remain in work and we know that access to good quality flexible working can help older people to remain in work for longer."

Cendex - part of XpertHR - has found that 59 per cent of IT and telecom HR professionals are expecting that there will be an increase in resignations by employees over the next 12 months, as businesses move back to office working.

The top of employees’ priority has once again become their salary. During the lockdown periods, 44 per cent of IT and telecom staff accepted pay freezes - but this has changed now that restrictions have been removed and office working has returned.

In this sector, 56 per cent of HR professionals have discovered that not only do employees count pay as the most important job factor, but 28 per cent also found that their employees were requesting salary reviews on a monthly basis.

However, 36 per cent of IT and telecoms HR professionals say they only review pay packages once a year - with a further 36 per cent stating that they review quarterly. Following the pandemic, just 34 per cent of technology companies state that they have modified their salary structure.

As reported by 85 per cent of HR professions from UK businesses, competition has intensified notably during the last year, provoking what has become known as ‘the great resignation’. As turnover is predicted to be very high next year, the competition for talent will further intensify, making it vital that businesses use whatever power they can to not only attract new talent - but to retain their existing staff, who have remained loyal to them throughout the pandemic.

Scott Walker - Managing Director at Cendex - commented:

“Technology has always been a leading sector for staff perks, salary and setting the new standard for employee experience. However, the data suggests not enough is being done to meet pay expectations. In order to remain competitive HR professionals must benchmark their reward offerings against other firms, otherwise they run the risk of losing talent.”

To retain their top staff, employers need to recognise employee demand and strive to meet it. HR professionals need to review salary and benefit offerings on a much more regular basis, gauging market demands to remain competitive in the retention of staff and what workers expect from employers.

New research conducted by Glassdoor - one of the worldwide leaders on insights about jobs and companies - has found that, amongst employees across the UK, there is no clear consensus as to what makes a good work-life balance.

It was also found that there was confusion about the actual meaning of work/life balance, causing employees to grapple with keeping work and home life harmonious. Of over 2,000 UK employees surveyed by Glassdoor, 52 per cent found that work was regularly eating into their personal life and 35 per cent said that a healthy balance is just not possible in their current role. This is despite, throughout the Covid pandemic, nearly half - 48 per cent - of UK workers having taken action to improve their blend of job and home.

A third of respondents - 36 per cent - stated that they are of the opinion that flexible working hours would supply a good balance between home and work life. A further 32 per cent want choice in where they work and 23 per cent want a reduced working week.

To 24 per cent of respondents generous paid time off is important and 28 per cent want the ability to change between work and personal life throughout the day, as needed. There is little consistency across gender, age or any other demographic.

The survey suggests that, with 8 in 10 employees stating that work-life balance would be a key consideration when looking for their next role, employers might consider a refresh of their HR policies to make it achievable to get a healthy balance between life and work.

Lauren Thomas - Economist at Glassdoor - said:

“Although the COVID crisis has shone a spotlight on the delicate balance between work and home, employees have been increasingly talking about mental health since 2018.

Discussions around wellbeing saw an immediate spike after the first lockdown in March 2020. However, it appears that employees are now feeling the impact of 18 months of change as mentions of burnout have increased 128 per cent since April 2021.

This suggests that employers are not fully meeting the needs of their workforce.”

The survey findings were published alongside Glassdoor’s 2020 rankings for the UK’s best companies for work-life balance and analysis of the market. It was revealed that tech companies dominate the list - but it is noticeably clear that great work-life balance can be found in every industry.

Speaking about the findings, Lauren Thomas said:

“Whether it is the autonomy to set one’s schedule, hybrid working policies or simply trust shown by management that work will be delivered without being tied to an office, it is clear that a healthy balance is best achieved when employees can individualise their approach to work.”

A people analytics expert has urged the government to standardise training policies in the workplace, following reports that one in five HR leaders are receiving inadequate or no training in diversity, equity and inclusion.

When polled, 97 per cent of 200 HR leaders surveyed by innovative behavioural assessment firm - AssessFirst - agreed that as 2022 is almost here and the topic of diversity, equity and inclusivity continues to be spoken about, it is a high priority across the country.

Over a third of respondents stated that the Covid-19 pandemic had accelerated progress in diversity, equity and inclusion in businesses across the UK. Yet, there is a worrying lack of regularisation in the implementation of company policy - resulting, for example, in the likes of disability and sexual orientation being overlooked in diversity goals.

David Bernard - founder and CEO of AssessFirst - is a leading advocate for the removal of bias in the workplace and whilst he believes that biases stem largely from outdated recruitment practices, he is of the opinion that the business case for gender, cultural, ethnic and socio-economic diversity is increasingly important to enable long-term success. 

He states that it is proven that companies who lead on ethnic and cultural diversity are 36 per cent more likely to be profitable than those who do not, adding:

“Following almost two years of widened remote working due to the coronavirus pandemic, this environment has opened doors for bigger and better opportunities for both employer and employee, allowing a multitude of candidates to apply for jobs that would have otherwise been deemed unattainable, for whatever reason. However, as we transition out of the other side of the pandemic, more and more businesses will revert to their previous ways of working, with a drop in remote working becoming inevitable.”

He added:

“We must not be allowed to reverse the clock and fall back into old habits. I truly believe it is imperative that the government introduce training regulations to support HR and recruitment teams as they source, evaluate and manage all candidates. Ultimately, this will create higher performing businesses that are more efficient – and free from bias.

It is a fundamental misconception that a CV is an effective way to identify and rank talent for hiring. As humans, we are all engrained to make decisions with bias. When this manifests in hiring managers and HR personnel alike, it results in a recruitment strategy based on intuition. Yes, intuition has an important place in business, but when relied upon too heavily in recruitment, it can mean that we make decisions based upon ‘what we are familiar with. It can cause us to rank candidates based on upbringing, education, experience, and even appearance.”  

David Bernard went on to say:

“Currently, more than 50 per cent of workforces across the UK are operating completely remotely. However, this figure is expected to drop to 22 per cent in 2022 - proving that some of the impacts of the pandemic are temporary.

Remote working helps to facilitate diversity, equity and inclusion because it offers greater equality of opportunity to a wider demographic. But in 2022, when the ubiquity of remote working subsides, we hope to see businesses maintaining the progress they have made under difficult circumstances.”

Reassuringly, 97 per cent of survey respondents declared that diversity, equity and inclusion will be a major priority for years to come and David Barnard remarked:

“HR is critical to a business’ ability to succeed - especially at a time when UK job vacancies are at a 20 year high. And HR is overwhelmingly saying that diversity, equity and inclusion is a very high priority. Most HR leaders are now well-placed to drive meaningful change, but only if they are supported with the right training and legislation.”

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has released its latest findings regarding wellbeing in the UK – which looks at “estimates of life satisfaction, feeling that the things done in life are worthwhile, happiness and anxiety at the UK, country, regional, county and local authority level.”

The ONS have been carrying out the survey since 2011, asking personal well-being questions to adults aged 16 years and over in the UK.

To better understand how they feel about their lives the survey asks the following questions:

• Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays?
• Overall, to what extent do you feel the things you do in your life are worthwhile?
• Overall, how happy did you feel yesterday?
• Overall, how anxious did you feel yesterday?

Respondents are asked to evaluate, on a scale of 0 to 10, “how satisfied they are with their life overall, whether they feel they have meaning and purpose in their life, and about their emotions (happiness and anxiety) during a particular period.”

The survey found that between April 2020 and March 2021 average ratings of wellbeing deteriorated across all indicators. This was a continued trend which was seen across most indicators in the previous period but this was the first period to take place entirely during the coronavirus pandemic In fact, results in this period showed the greatest annual declines in personal well-being in the UK since the survey started. Personal well-being for life satisfaction had a 0.27 point decline, anxiety a 0.26 point increase, happiness a 0.17 point decline and feeling that the things done in life are worthwhile a 0.15 point decline.

Commenting on the findings, HR specialist XpertHR described them as “bleak” but put the decline down to the enduring effects of the coronavirus crisis.

New criminal offences relating to UK defined benefit pension schemes have come into force.

They will apply to anyone whose intentional or reckless conduct puts members’ savings at risk. This includes any person - company directors, lenders, investors, trustees and advisors - who avoid paying pension debt or is responsible for actions which are detrimental to a defined benefit pension scheme.

They are expressed as any person whose actions detrimentally affect, in a material way, the likelihood of accrued benefits under a defined benefit occupational pension scheme being received; that the person knew or ought to have known that it would have that effect and that the person did not have a reasonable excuse for their act, failure or for engaging in that conduct.

The highest profile of the range of regulatory powers and sanctions are three new criminal offences - and alongside these, the Pensions Regulator has been given power to impose fines of up to £1 million in a range of circumstances; enhanced power to require defined benefit sponsors and related parties to make immediate payments into their scheme and to extend information gathering powers.        

It is expected that any prosecution would be instigated by the Pensions Regulator. However, a prosecution may also be brought by other persons or bodies - including the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

There is no time limit on when the Regulator can bring a prosecution for these new offences - unlike its power to issue contribution notices which it can only exercise for up to six years after a relevant act or failure.

A criminal prosecution can also be brought against any person who assists with the commission of a relevant act or course of conduct.

As with the criminal offences, there is no time limit on when the Regulator can impose a fine under these new powers. However, depending on the circumstances, it may be easier for the Regulator to impose a civil fine on a person - as opposed to securing a criminal conviction - on the basis that a civil penalty is subject to a lower standard of proof.

In April 2022, the government is planning new reporting requirements in relation to certain material corporate transactions and the granting of security. This will mean that organisations will probably be required to notify the Regulator - and their scheme’s trustees - about such transactions at an earlier stage.

In Back Care Awareness Week, from 4th to 8th October, personal injury specialists National Accident Helpline called upon the government to recognise the massive disparity in the amount the public can claim in compensation for back injuries incurred through no fault of their own - but depending on where their injury took place - on a road, at work or in a public setting.

It was found by analysis that for the same severity of injury, accidents in the workplace - where the employer is at fault - could result in eight times higher compensation when compared to a road traffic accident compensation.

As those suffering these injuries are not at fault, the National Accident Helpline are asking why there is so much inconsistency in the claim amounts - and what can be done to rectify it.

Recent road traffic whiplash reforms, introduced by the government in May 2021, have been found to be the cause of the disparity. The reforms centre on a desire to lower the cost of insurance premiums by reducing the value of minor, exaggerated or fraudulent road traffic claims. Instituting fixed tariff damages - whilst increasing the size limit of claims that could be managed through the RTA small claims track - was deemed to do this and has resulted in both the potential amount of compensation awarded for RTA injuries - as well as the associated costs for claims - being lower.

However, the National Accident Helpline analysis highlights inequality that may have arisen from this policy change.

Prior to the pandemic, around 650,000 motor claims were made each year, with around 85 per cent of these whiplash related. The changes to the claims process meant that there are many members of the general public who will be out of pocket through no fault of their own.

Commenting on the whiplash reforms earlier this year, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers noted that:

The Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 will put into force a new tariff of compensation for pain and suffering for some people with whiplash injuries after a car crash. The amounts in the tariff which have been produced by the government, however, are derisory, offensive, and certain to result in under-compensation.

This potential for a victim of an RTA injury to receive unfair compensation is highlighted when compared to other forms of compensation. As an example, someone sustaining a three month back injury in an RTA would recover just half the amount of compensation that they could receive if their flight was delayed at an airport.

Jonathan White - Legal and Compliance Director National Accident Helpline - said:

“We're calling out to the government today to look into the shocking disparity in compensation claims for back injuries that people have sustained through no fault of their own. To have up to eight times more compensation for the same back injury, but due to a different cause, is not ethically right. Ultimately, the person who receives the injury is going to be affected in the same way and so should be compensated in the same way. We're keen to help raise awareness of the differences in compensation for the same injury to ensure people are no longer left out of pocket, or financially impacted, through an accident that wasn't their fault.”

Experts have called on the government to collaborate with companies, as they state that a record high wage growth will not sustain economic recovery.

A survey of 400 recruiters - by the Recruitment and Employment Confederation and KPMG - recorded an increase in permanent starting salaries. In addition, they witnessed the rate of growth of permanent starting salaries accelerating in September - to hit a new record for the third month in a row. 

A rise in average hourly rates of pay for short-term staff was also seen in September - with salaries awarded to new permanent joiners and temporary staff both increasing at the fastest rate in 24 years of data collection.

Of the 400 UK recruiters polled 57 per cent saw higher pay for new permanent joiners, with less than 1 per cent seeing salaries fall.

Although it was reported that some candidates negotiated higher pay, recruitment experts suggest that the swell in starting salaries was predominantly because of the increased competition and attempts by businesses to attract applicants.

Claire Warnes - Head of Education, Skills and Productivity at KPMG UK - said:

“This month’s unprecedented increase in starting salaries – the highest in 24 years – is being driven by the near record fall in candidate availability. While higher salaries are good for job seekers, wage growth alone is unlikely to help sustain economic recovery because of limited levers to bring people with the right skills to where the jobs are and increase productivity.”

She added that whilst the end of the furlough scheme should bring many new workers to the job market, it was not likely that these people would have the right skills for the sectors with the most demand - advising:

“Reskilling and supporting people to move jobs which are in demand needs to be speeded up.”

Neil Carberry - Chief Executive of the Recruitment and Employment Confederation - stated that whilst this was the fastest growth in starting salaries since this survey began, recent events have shown how labour shortages have affected people’s lives.

He said:

“The scale of the shortages we are seeing cannot be explained by one factor alone but are a major challenge to businesses’ ability to drive the prosperity of the UK in the months and years to come - supporting families and paying the taxes that fund public services.”

He added:

“It is essential that the government works in partnership with business to deliver sustainable growth and rising wages, rather than a crisis-driven sugar rush.”

David Allison - Chief Executive Officer at GetMyFirstJob.co.uk - one of the recruitment firms that responded to the survey - remarked that the sorts of roles where more staff are required also command higher salaries.

He stated:

“Many organisations have historically relied on cheap labour from young people as part of the solution. However, our data shows that young people are increasingly well informed about their choices. The £4.30 apprentice minimum wage, for example, just won’t cut it. There is growth in demand for sectors such as digital, IT and professional services where not only is the starting pay better, but career progression is also understood. The message to employers is clear - if you are recruiting young people to build skills and capability for the future, then a competitive salary and career progression have to be part of the package.”

An Employment Tribunal Judge reduced a claimant’s compensation to zero because the claimant would still have been dismissed if the proper procedure had been followed.

Mr Paolo Porchetti - a highly paid senior executive at Brush Electrical Machines Ltd - was sacked after sabotaging a settlement process by submitting nearly £60,000 worth of outdated expenses which he kept in a shoebox.

Mr Porchetti had been offered a lucrative settlement package by the bosses at Brush Electrical Machines, to leave the company after they became very frustrated by his poor performance.

From 2015 until his dismissal on 30 July 2019, Mr Porchetti worked for Brush Electrical Machines as sales director for the Asia-Pacific region, based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from 2017. His Line Manager, Mr Van Schaik - the company’s Executive Sales Director - told the tribunal that during this time he had to constantly remind Mr Porchetti to submit expense reports and to create calendar reminders. Colleagues complained that he was unavailable; he failed to respond to key clients and was not successful in improving his sales team’s performance - causing disruption within the business.

A meeting was held in February 2019 between Mr Van Schaik, Mr Chris Abbott (Chief Executive Officer) and Mr Christian Londereau (group HR Director) where it was decided that the group HR Director, who was also a trained lawyer, would explore the possibility of Mr Porchetti being interested in a paid exit. In May, he was invited to a meeting - which Mr Porchetti was 45 minutes late for - and offered a settlement to leave the company with six months’ salary of £660,000. At that time, he did not disclose the amount of the expenses owing to him.

Later, he admitted to having three years of expenses to claim - receipts he had kept in a shoebox. The Tribunal was informed that company policy stated that all authorised expenses for trips should be forwarded to the finance department within 14 days from the date of return. Without agreeing to pay the expenses, Mr Van Schaik did agree to review them.

Two days later, Mr Porchetta returned his rental car in a damaged state without reporting the damage to the business or to local police. He was contacted by the HR Director who informed him that £2,000 would be deducted from his final settlement. However, Mr Porchetti later also returned his laptop in a damaged condition and failed to return his iPad.

Brush Electrical Machines refused to pay the expenses when Mr Porchetti finally submitted them - resulting in negotiations breaking down and the company feeling the relationship was irreparable. He was dismissed at the end of July, with the company admitting to the Tribunal that that Mr Porchetti’s dismissal was quick.

Employment Judge Victoria Butler, at the Midlands East Region hearing, endorsed the company’s statement that the dismissal was fair but said that Mr Porchetti’s actions amounted to blameworthy conduct leading to his dismissal and reduced his compensation and basic award by 100 per cent stating that he would have been dismissed regardless.

Barry Ross - Director and Partner at Crossland Employment Solicitors - said:

“Not every employee will be the architect of their own downfall in such a significant way, so it is important to ensure that fair procedures are followed.”

Kate Palmer - HR Advice and Consultancy Director at Peninsula Group - stated that employers should be wary of settlements and added:

“The danger with settling is employers often have made up their minds to terminate the employee before the agreement is signed. This employer learned the hard way how essential the process is before dismissal, even where the reason for the dismissal is valid.”

According to an announcement by the Treasury, in total UK employers have repaid £1.3 billion in furlough money to HMRC since July 2020. Included in this amount is £300 million handed back in the last 3 months by firms who have overclaimed, or decided they no longer need payments received through the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme.

Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak, said:

“This Government stepped in to help when people needed it most, supporting nearly 12 million jobs through furlough. This worked, nearly 2 million fewer people are now expected to be out of work in the UK than previously feared.”

He added:

“Now with our recovery underway it is heartening to see that £1.3 billion in furlough grants have been returned as the economy recovers.”

In July 2021 the number of people using the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme dropped by 340,000 - with more than a third of those aged between 18 and 34 - to the lowest level since the start of the pandemic. At this time the government’s contribution fell from 80% of an employee’s salary to 70%, and employers had to start paying 10% of wages. For August and September, the government’s contribution was then reduced further.

The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme came to an end on 30th September 2021 – with employers that need to make claims for September, having until 14th October to do so. Over it’s lifetime the Scheme protected nearly 12 million jobs and supported more than 1.3 million businesses across the UK and to date, the Government has spent £68.5 billion o it.

Companies are expected to continue repayments through adjustments to claims and the voluntary disclosure service into 2022, additionally HMRC is cracking down on those who have fraudulently claimed furlough through its 1,250-strong Taxpayer Protection Taskforce.

New research by Penfold – a digital pension provider – has revealed that 61 per cent of British workers are not confident that the value of their pension pot will be enough to live on in their retirement. In addition, to date 37 per cent have absolutely no idea how much they have saved.

Despite adapting to virtual meetings and embracing remote working, which has made the workforce more tech-savvy, pensions – which should be one of the most beneficial workplace perks – remain dated and unchanged. Even after the introduction of auto-enrolment nine years ago, workers are failing to participate in the management of one of their largest investments.

According to Penfold, this is due to a lack of technological innovation in the pension space – a problem which can be solved by use of their new app, whose features such as open banking will allow users to access their pension quickly and confidently, whilst also allowing simple processes such as payroll integration - helping employers and HR teams manage pensions more efficiently.

Pete Hykin - co-founder of Penfold - said:

“Auto-enrolment was introduced in 2012 as the answer to all our pension problems – however, it’s definitely not solved the issue. Auto-enrolment is - in reality - a nightmare for HR teams to set up and so, more often than not, employees are handed a Nest pension where they receive one annual paper statement a year, often to an out-of-date address, and no guidance on how to save for the future. Employees then lack any engagement or interest in it and often mistakenly just assume they may be covered for retirement when they most definitely are not.”

In 2019, Penfold set up an app which transformed the savings of over thirty thousand self-employed in the UK, providing them with a simple, flexible, digital way of saving for their retirement and is said to be as easy to use as online banking.

Penfold is now ready to do the same for employed workers - launching one of the first workplace pensions.

Pete Hykin said:

“We’ve rebuilt the back-end pension infrastructure from scratch to allow all processes to happen instantly, quickly and flexibly. For savers, our product uses open banking to allow workers to seamlessly top up their pensions independently of their employer contributions – just like an online bank account. And importantly, it notifies them when their employer contributes to their pension which we know from our research can significantly boost engagement and interaction with their savings. And, for employers and their HR teams, automated complex processes like Salary Sacrifice take the headache out of pensions. We also offer a pension education programme to businesses to ensure they maximise the potential their pension scheme has for engaging their employees.”

He added:

“The most exciting thing to see amongst people who engage with their pension is not just the total mounting up but also the activity on the app. Users log into Penfold on average ten times a month to add more, see employer or HMRC contributions, pause additional payments etc They are engaged and involved in their savings – something which is essential in changing the way people view pensions.”

HR body CIPD conducted a poll of 2,000 employers who changed their employees’ contracts during the coronavirus crisis – finding that 22 per cent of organisations had altered terms and conditions. 

The research found that of the firms who changed staff contracts between March 2020 and July 2021, one in ten used ‘fire and rehire' tactics, with the most common changes cited as location of work – 49 per cent and pay levels – 44 per cent. Changes to redundancy pay and conditions were made by 22 per cent of employers.

Of the firms that made changes, 86 per cent did so through negotiation, consultation and voluntary agreement.  However, 14 per cent dismissed staff and rehired them on new terms.

Not all changes were negative – of the employers polled by the CIPD, 50 per cent of organisations included an improved pay offer in the contract compared to 38 per cent who reduced pay – and whilst 44 per cent reduced working hours, 24 per cent increased them.

In May, unions and MPs appealed for ‘fire and rehire’ practices to be outlawed. The union Unite ran a poll with the result showing that 70 per cent of the public wanted it to be made illegal. Industrial action was threatened by angry workers.

Ben Willmott - Head of public policy at the CIPD – stated that, given the upheaval to working locations and practices thrown up by the pandemic, it was not surprising that contractual changes had been made. He went on to say that whilst ‘fire and rehire’ was still not a widespread tactic, more progress could still be made to avoid the practice, which creates a high risk of legal claims, damage to reputation and employee relations.

He added:

“A large majority of changes to workers’ contractual terms and conditions were achieved through consultation and agreement. However, a minority of organisations did resort to using ‘fire and rehire’ practices. While our research shows this is not a widespread tactic, more progress can still be made in avoiding this practice which creates a high risk of legal claims, reputational damage and an adverse effect on employee relations. ‘Fire and rehire’ should only be undertaken after extensive consultation and all other alternatives have been considered.”

The CIPD has issued new guidance to support employers in making changes to terms and conditions.  The have recommended that organisations use consultation and voluntary agreement rather than imposing terms and reiterates their view that ‘fire and rehire practices’ should only ever be considered as an absolute last resort - if changes to employment contracts are critical and voluntary agreement is not possible.

According to research by Professor Abigail Marks - who heads the Future of Work project at Newcastle University - a four-day working week may not be helpful and realistic to enact.

Professor Marks’s comments were made after the SNP government announced it was setting up a £10 million fund to enable some office businesses to cut workers’ hours without reducing their pay.

The Trade Union Congress (TUC) has also called on the government to help people work fewer hours, whilst receiving the same pay. The TUC - in calling for a four-day working week - is attempting to establish the groundwork for when technology, particularly AI, exceeds the capabilities of human employees, in order that transition is smooth and to ensure that employees and not just employers, reap the benefits of the new technology. 

Scotland is the latest nation to trial the four-day working week, whilst similar trials are taking place in New Zealand and in other parts of the world.

Professor Marks stated that the average working week in the UK is now 42.5 hours and that the UK is also the ‘unpaid overtime capital of Europe’ - implying that employers are unlikely to reduce workloads and would expect workers to undertake the same amount of work within four days that was previously undertaken in five.

A trial conducted by the US state of Utah which saw some excellent environmental results, as well as employee and employer benefits, closed due to poor customer satisfaction - with people complaining that they were unable to access government services as offices closed on a Friday.

In addition, it was found that employees who are expected to still work 35 hours - but across four days - will show decreased levels of productivity. It can also impact employees’ engagement, work-life balance and overall happiness. To achieve the desired effects of a four-day working week, standard 7 hour working days should be implemented.

Professor Marks thought that some organisations might look at practical issues and stated:

“It’s unworkable for them due to the volume of work or because they already work crippling 12-hour shifts and can’t cram more into a day or don’t earn enough to have the luxury of having three days off each week.”

She added:

“For most of us, a four-day work week therefore feels more like a pipe dream than a realistic ambition. It will benefit the very few whose organisations can reduce their workload to make it appropriate to 4 days. This is likely to apply to government workers since their departments will have to be seen to be a “four-day week success”. But more generally, a four-day week is likely to exacerbate existing inequalities and create resentment against those who get to have a three-day weekend.”

Professor Marks went on to say that, with nearly half of the UK workforce indicating that they are suffering from stress, clearly something must be done - and workers need to be working fewer hours, and particularly fewer intense hours.

The results from a study by Sanford University found that some of the world’s most productive countries, such as Norway; Denmark; Germany and the Netherlands work on average around 27 hours a week - the same hours proposed for a UK four-day working week. On the other hand, Japan - a nation notoriously known for overworked employees - ranks as number 20 out of 35 countries for productivity.

A poll by Working Families - UK’s work-life balance charity - found that 86 per cent of employers feel that line managers are focusing more on outputs instead of the number of hours worked. This has come about due to changing patterns of work since the pandemic and has been welcomed by experts.

The findings are part of the charity’s Benchmark Report 2021, where HR teams from 84 different businesses commented on their activities and processes relating to family friendly and flexible working.

Jane van Zyl - CEO of Working Families - said the figure was “particularly encouraging” and added:

“Rather than focus on where work is done, or what time of the day it’s done at, employers should instead agree clear deliverables with their employee and focus on those.”

Daisy Hooper - Head of Policy at the Chartered Management Institute - commented:

“Boosting management capability is essential if organisations are to successfully navigate the challenges of the post-lockdown workplace. If implemented well, it can improve wellbeing, help with attracting and retaining employees and promote inclusion.”

Claire McCartney - Senior Policy Adviser for resourcing and inclusion at the CIPD - agreed that focus on output rather than hours was preferable.

She said:

“Flexible working arrangements can empower people to have greater control over their work-life balance. It is good for inclusion and fostering a diverse workforce and can have benefits for wellbeing and performance.”

In addition, Claire McCartney advised that appropriate training and support be provided for managers to give them the right knowledge and skills to support their teams with flexible working. 

Astrid Beekhuis - Director of HR at Momentive - said:

“While the number of hours worked used to be the holy grail of tracking success, outputs are much stronger indicators of a job well done.”

She added that while an “A for effort” motto was good for morale, such metrics are not always best for business.

A trainee accountant - Mrs Catherine Henderson - has been awarded more than £13,000 for unfair dismissal after being sacked for leaving work due to an emergency with her sick child.

The employment tribunal heard that Mrs Henderson began her employment with AccountsNet Limited - an accounting firm for small businesses - in October 2019.  She was dismissed five months later for leaving her work without permission from a manager.The tribunal were told that one of Mrs Henderson’s children required medical attention - as well as additional support and care due to their underlying condition.  Mrs Henderson had informed her bosses of the situation in January 2020 when she had to take three days off to care for the child - the first day’s absence being recorded as compassionate leave and the following two day’s absences were taken as unpaid leave.

After this, Mrs Henderson agreed a flexible working pattern with her line manager. It was decided that she would work from nine until three, with no lunch break, so she could be home for her child when school finished.

However, two months later - when Mrs Henderson returned from a week’s annual leave - she was asked to attend a more formal meeting to discuss her hours of work. During this meeting, she was informed by her bosses that the hours she was working were having a detrimental effect on the business. Mrs Henderson said she was unable to go back to full-time hours because of the support required by her child.

It was after returning to her desk that she received the text from her child’s school, stating that there was an emergency regarding the child. As the managers were all in another meeting, Mrs Henderson explained to her colleagues that she had to leave work to attend to her child and that she would call the practice manager later.

However, Mrs Henderson sent a text to the practice manager to explain her absence but did not phone her. The following day she texted again - saying she was unwell due to stress and had been signed off for two weeks by her GP. 

Three days later, Mrs Henderson received a dismissal letter, citing her ongoing absences and the fact that she had not telephoned her manager to report her absences, choosing to send text messages instead.  The dismissal letter also stated that Mrs Henderson was not acting in good faith by reporting herself as sick - when it was her child - and saying that her abrupt exit to collect her child without authorisation amounted to gross misconduct.

Mrs Henderson wrote to her employers to give reasons why she thought the dismissal was unfair - but was not allowed to appeal.

Employment Judge Eleanor Mannion said that the accountancy firm had made it clear that it did not have an issue with Mrs Henderson needing time off to care for an ill child, but they objected to the way she had left her place of work, not speaking to a manager beforehand.

The judge, however, agreed with Mrs Henderson that the text was sent “as soon as reasonably practicable”- and one day’s leave was a “reasonable period of time”.  Her claim for automatic unfair dismissal was successful and AccountNet Limited were ordered to pay her £13,080.55 for loss of earnings and statutory rights.  Her second claim of unfair dismissal citing her requests for flexible working hours was dismissed.

The Confederation of Business Industry has warned that the present labour shortages could last for up to two years, with experts suggesting that the government should take a more flexible approach to filling gaps instead of waiting for shortages to solve themselves. It also suggested that firms should use skills training and apprenticeships to assist in solving the problem.

Tony Danker - Director-General of the CBI - raised concerns, stating:

“Shortages are already affecting business operations and will have a negative impact on the UK’s economic recovery”.

He added:

“Standing firm and waiting for shortages to solve themselves is not the way to run an economy. We need to simultaneously address short-term economic needs and long-term economic reform.”

Tony Danker remarked that the government’s ambition to make the labour force in the UK more highly skilled and productive was correct and he agreed that businesses would train and hire more homegrown workers in time - but added that this could not be achieved overnight. 

He said:

“A refusal to deploy temporary and targeted interventions to enable economic recovery is self-defeating. Businesses are already spending significant amounts on training, but that takes time to yield results, and some members suggest it could take two years rather than a couple of months for labour shortages to be fully eliminated.”

Gerwyn Davies - Senior Labour Market Adviser at CIPD - said that recent increase in hiring activity - and the related decline in labour supply - indicated that labour shortages might not continue to the same extent, given the imminent end of the furlough scheme.

However, Kate Palmer - HR Advice and Consultancy Director at Peninsula - stated that, as the impact of coronavirus continued and the new immigration laws continue to be rolled out, there was still a chance that staff shortages could worsen.

She said:

“Government intervention will be needed to curb the impact of this and help reduce the risk of potential business closures in the near future.”

She suggested that employers should consider investing in training new hires to their desired standard, perhaps through apprenticeship schemes.

Ian Moore - founder of HR consultancy Lodge Court - said:

“Having a blended approach of permanent, contract, and overseas staff, together with apprentices will help to plug the known gaps but this will take time.”

He went on to suggest that the government review not only immigration but also employment levies and taxation rules such as IR35, so they do not deter more individuals from changing careers - whilst also encouraging others to stay in the UK.

Experts have highlighted HR’s critical role in changing organisational cultures and processes, stating that more needs to be done to end the ‘old boys’ club’ at the top.

New research from the New Street Consulting Group shows that, on average, female directors earn almost three-quarters less than their male counterparts.

The report, which studied the remuneration of nearly 950 directors - including more than 700 non-executive board members - found that female FTSE 100 directors currently earn an average of £237,000 per year - 73 per cent less than the average pay for male FTSE 100 directors who receive £875,900 per year.

The reason for the large discrepancy at the board level of FTSE 100 companies is due mainly to the fact that 91 per cent of female directors hold non-executive jobs rather than executive roles - with non-executive positions tending to have lower remuneration.

The pay gap between female and male executive directors was even more evident - with female executive directors earning an average pay of £1.5m per year in comparison with £2.5m per year for male executive directors.

Dr Scarlett Brown - Corporate Governance Lead at the CIPD - commented that there was still a long way to go to get women into executive roles. 

She said:

“HR has a critical role to play in making this change happen - and highlighting aspects of an organisation’s systems, culture and processes that are preventing women reaching the top leadership positions.”

She added:

“HR also needs to ensure line managers are trained on these approaches to support fair and inclusive career progression.”

Claire Carter - Director at New Street Consulting Group - stated:
“Great progress has been made in bringing more women onto boards, but this research shows there is much more to do. Focusing solely on the percentage of directors who are women is not enough when trying to approach equality.

Most businesses want to end the old boys’ club that exists at the top. The key to doing that will be ensuring that women have more executive responsibilities and are trained and prepared properly for taking on that responsibility. Allocating them the right assignments and projects is essential to that process.”

Darren Hockley - Managing Director of e-learning provider DeltaNet International - said:

“HR must work more closely with executive teams to address equal and fair pay to stamp out social injustice.”

Explaining that pay equality responsibility does not just lie with HR - it requires support from everyone in the organisation, he added:

“More executives need to step up and become an ally for their female colleagues. If they are aware of injustice, then they need to speak up and support their female colleagues to get paid what they deserve.” 

The employment tribunal in Cambridge have ruled that a mortgage advisor who was sacked for ‘moaning’ about her statutory rights was unfairly dismissed.

Ms Helen McMahon had worked at Heron Financial Services Limited for two years, commencing June 2017, as a mortgage protection adviser specialising in new builds. She was dismissed in June 2019.

Ms McMahon stated that she regularly worked 12 hours a day - without lunch breaks - and at weekends.  She had complained to her employers about excessive working hours and underpayment of commission - complaints that were ignored.

In addition to her salary, Ms McMahon was entitled to commission - and figures obtained by the tribunal showed that she was one of the top performers - having been given champagne as a reward for having one of the highest conversion rates in the company.  

On 10 May 2019, after not receiving commission payments in her latest payslips, she emailed the payroll department regarding the payments. She then took two weeks off work, from 16 - 30 May 2019, due to illness. On her return, she requested a meeting with her manager, during which she raised the fact that she was working long hours - causing her stress; her salary and commission was not what she had expected - and she had not received sick pay. After stating that it was her statutory right to not work more than 48 hours a week, she requested a reduction in the hours. Her manager agreed to raise this with the directors.

Two days later, she was called to a meeting with the company founder, Warren Harrocks, who dismissed Ms McMahon - without any explanation. Mr Harrocks, however, told the tribunal it was because her performance was not up to par with the standards and expectations of the business. This was despite other less successful employees still being retained.

Having received no further communication, on 2 July 2019 Ms McMahon raised a grievance, setting out that she had not been provided with a reason for her dismissal; evidence supporting any reason; a warning; time to prepare - or an opportunity to be accompanied at the meeting. She stated that a reasonable dismissal procedure had not been followed. 

On 4 July 2019, Ms McMahon’s grievance was dismissed by letter, with Heron Financial Services claiming that she had accepted the allegations and expressing surprise at her complaint because no appeal had been submitted.

Mr Harrocks told the tribunal that he was not aware of Ms McMahon’s previous conversation with her manager - or that she had previously raised issues. However, the tribunal found that Mr Harrocks had received a text message saying the meeting could not be recalled because ‘she was always moaning’. 

In finding that Ms McMahon had been unfairly dismissed and was a victim of wrongful dismissal and unauthorised deduction of wages, Employment Judge Sarah King said:

“It is clear to me that Heron Financial Services Limited management considered that Ms McMahon was a moaner; someone who complained. I believe that Mr Harrocks was aware of these matters and that this was the reason or principal reason for the claimant’s dismissal.”

Ms McMahon was awarded £19,552.33 for unfair dismissal; £2,736.38 for unlawful deduction from wages; £586.81 for unpaid commission and sick pay and £252.41 for wrongful dismissal.

Heron Financial Services Limited have appealed.

A survey regarding diversity in the FTSE 100 senior leadership has been conducted by Green Park Business Leaders Index (formerly Green Park Leadership 10,000), since 2014. The survey charts the progress being made by the UK’s major private sector businesses to achieve greater ethnic and gender diversity at senior levels. This year, along with an analysis of industry sectors, for the first time it includes a breakdown of gender and ethnocultural diversity by job function.

The survey found that just 11 of the C-suite leadership roles were filled with individuals from an ethnic minority background - C-suite refers to the top tier, or executive-level roles within a company, such as Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Chief Operating Officer (COO) and Chief Information Officer (CIO) - and for the first time since 2014, there was not one black chair, CEO or CFO in any FTSE 100 company. This is even though, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), around 13% of the of the UK’s working-age population is non-white.

The survey also noticed that there is very little diversity in some functions, as they are dominated by a particular gender or ethnicity. Curiously, one of the least diverse functions is Diversity & Inclusion - where 85.4% of the leadership roles are occupied by females and 62.5% are white females. In this function, ethnic minority males are the least represented at 6.3%.

The HR function is also dominated by white females at 55%, while white males dominate the roles with traditionally more direct routes to the top, such as Finance, Operations and Digital roles.

Additionally, the report looked at gender diversity and found that 47.8% of non executive directors were female, about twice as many than were executive directors, at 27.7%. However, on the increase was the number of women in the top three roles, which had risen from 23 to 36 - an uplift from 4.3% to 12.2% since 2014.

The Sussex-based HR tech company for SMEs - BreatheHR - has revealed the findings from recent research carried out on attendees of its recent webinar.

Following the effects of the pandemic over the past 18 months, BreatheHR asked the question, “Who is HRing HR?’ - the aim being to understand how responsibilities have changed within the HR function and whether HR feel they are being supported.

More than half - 58.6 per cent - of HR respondents said that they are not being supported; 95.1 per cent said their workload has increased since March 2020, with 54.8 per cent stating they have had a 3 to 5 hour increase and 32.8 per cent reporting a 2 hour increase in their workload. Over 92 per cent said existing HR policies are not fit for the purpose and must be adapted, following the pandemic health concerns boom. 

Regarding concerns over mental health, the overwhelming majority - 87.8 per cent - of employees were highly concerned about teammates wellbeing in the past year, saying 26.8 per cent of SMEs have not provided additional training to deal with wellbeing concerns.  As a result, HR staff felt unequipped to tackle the problems.

Of the respondents, 78 per cent say duty of care has changed - with HR staff needing to further protect their teams, but 74.3 per cent of HR teams feel unable to gauge their staff wellbeing across remote teams. Experts warn that the impact on mental health - if not addressed - will contribute to staff burnout issues.

HR professionals cited updating company policies (21.4 per cent) and recruitment related administration (17.3 per cent) as the two areas taking up most of their time since March 2020. This was closely followed by maintaining employee records (15.8 per cent) and furlough management at 15.1 per cent.

Jonathan Richards - CEO at BreatheHR - commented:

“The truth is that HR teams have been a badly-hit part of many businesses. It’s shocking to see the extent to which these professionals are feeling unsupported, and the varied tasks the past 18 months have thrown up at them. As we emerge out of this, I think a key area will be for businesses to check in on their HR teams more. Understanding where their pain points are and helping to alleviate them, be that through talking about problems or implementing software that helps to automate tasks, will be crucial to getting making HR teams feel best supported.”

According to the 2021 Mind the Trust Gap report - which surveyed 500 HR talent leaders from varied sizes of organisation across different sectors - 85 per cent of UK businesses need to critically improve the quality of their recruitment processes and 77 per cent say they need to improve the way they assess the value and skills people bring to the business.

Despite recruitment across the UK having picked up - figures show the that the number of workers on payroll surged by 356,000 in June - businesses are clearly struggling to recruit amid rapidly changing circumstances.

The data collected from the research has shown that improving hire quality is the biggest priority over the coming year, as 57 per cent of all hires made in the last 12 months are not working out in some capacity - with 32 per cent working out in some areas but not all and 25 per cent not working out at all. Only 43 per cent are working out in all areas.

The key priorities needed to be implemented by HR managers in recruitment over the next 12 months, was found to be:

• Improving quality of hires
• Looking beyond CVs and interviews to differentiate candidates
• Speeding up the recruitment process
• Reducing the costs of recruitment
• Improving the candidate experience

The data further reveals that hiring managers believe the best indicators of how an employee will perform in an organisation are personality - 34 per cent; emotional intelligence - 32 per cent; adaptability - 32 per cent; performance in an interview - 7 per cent and qualifications 16 per cent. Relevant previous experience on a CV is no longer considered valuable.

Nearly all respondents - 88 per cent - of hiring managers and recruiters believe predictive hiring and hiring for potential will be essential to their organisation by 2023.

Sabby Gill - CEO of Thomas International, leading global assessment platform provider - commented:

“Businesses need to make a step change in how they recruit if they’re to hire the right candidates first time, every time. Otherwise, they risk falling behind. Predictive hiring can help identify traits in individuals and teams that can be harnessed and acted upon so companies can function properly and innovate successfully in this new world of work.”

Psychometrics were said to help enhance trust during recruitment by 72 per cent of those surveyed. When asked if only one method were to be used to predict the future performance of all hires in the next 12 months, 46 per cent of hiring managers opted for psychometric testing only. Only 33 per cent said interview and 21 per cent said CV.

The research also stated that 70 per cent found the benefits of predictive hiring were improved quality of hires; 86 per cent found improved employee engagement; 80 per cent found greater ability to discover areas for individual’s personal development and 79 per cent found highlighting skills shortages within the business.

The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) has urged employers to support staff with receiving their COVID-19 vaccinations, after commissioning YouGov to poll 2,030 senior decision makers in businesses in the UK. The survey was carried out online in June 2021.

The research found that 25 per cent of employers have not been providing staff with paid time off to get vaccinated - and have no plans to do so. In addition, a similar number of employers are not offering full company sick pay for those unable to work due to side-effects of the vaccine.

When asked about giving staff paid time off for Covid vaccinations, 59 per cent said they did; 4 per cent said they did not at present but planned to implement this soon; 25 per cent said they did not and had no plans to do so - and 12 per cent said they had not yet decided.

ACAS stated that the study showed that more employers should support workers to get a vaccine when it is offered. This would include being paid for time off - a move partially backed by the Confederation of British Businesses.

Susan Clews - Chief Executive of ACAS - said:

“The vaccine rollout programme has gone well - and our survey reveals that most employers have allowed staff paid time off to get the jab - but a quarter have not. Our study also reveals that a similar number of bosses have not paid full company sick pay to staff who have been unable to work due to side-effects from the vaccine. It’s in businesses’ best interests to have a vaccine policy that supports staff to take time off, as fully vaccinated workers are less likely to need longer periods of time off work to recover from Covid 19.”

John Foster - Director of Policy at the CBI - said:

“Delivering on the vaccine rollout is crucial to boosting confidence in the reopening and helping the economy adjust to the next phase of learning to live with the virus. The vast majority of businesses are continuing their commitment to protecting staff and customers during the pandemic. This includes showing flexibility when the time comes for their staff to get the jab. We’d encourage all companies to demonstrate this same level of consideration towards their employees.”

Some law firms in England, however, have advised employers against forcing staff to receive the Covid-19 vaccinations due to the risk of discrimination claims.

Alexandra Carn - Employment Partner at Keystone Law - stated:

“Companies that will introduce a contractual requirement that employees are vaccinated against Covid-19 could be falling foul of current legislation. Under the current Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, there is a requirement that employers are responsible for ensuring the health and safety of their employees so far as reasonably practicable. This has been cited as a means by which employers could demand employees to have vaccinations. However, this fails to consider other legal protections that employees may have, and does not consider the position in the event of a conflict of laws. Many employees may not be able to have vaccines for health reasons and as such a requirement for vaccination may infringe the protections for disabled persons. Employees may refuse vaccinations for religious reasons, a right also protected under the Equality Act. In addition, there is the issue that a belief in anti-vaccination is a non-religious ‘protected belief’ under the Equality Act. There is a large body of case law on what constitutes a ‘protected belief’ and from that it is clearly arguable that an anti-vaccination belief could qualify.”

Supporting the findings of the ACAS study, Andy McDonald - Labour Shadow Employment Rights and Protections Secretary - stated:

“Employers who are refusing to give their staff paid time off to get their vaccinations are putting their staff at risk and undermining the national effort against the virus. The Government is not doing enough. They should put pressure on employers to guarantee that workers will receive paid time off for their vaccination appointments and to recover from any after-effects.”

A recent survey conducted by YouGov – on behalf of the HR body, CIPD – and based on responses received from 2,064 persons aged between 18 and 30 years, shows that 43 per cent of them believe that the Covid pandemic has harmed their career prospects.

Reasons for this could be that they lost their jobs; the industry they want to work in has fewer vacancies or home working has resulted in them missing development and networking opportunities.

The latest official figures from the Office for National Statistics show that there were 166,000 fewer 16 to 24-year-olds in work in June 2021, compared with March 2020, when 3.9 million were employed. Despite that, it has also been reported that many employers are struggling with staff shortages, highlighting the need for more organisations to invest in young people in diverse ways to bolster their talent pipeline.

According to the survey, 50 per cent of young people currently not in work have been so for 12 months; 49 per cent of the unemployed are not confident about finding any work in the next three months and 72 per cent are not confident about finding a job in the next three months to meet their career ambitions and salary expectations. 

The research also found that 14 per cent of unemployed young people have applied for more than thirty jobs in the past three months; 51 per cent of those not in work have not accessed any support services to help them look for work and 44 per cent of those not in work had attended university.

Lizzie Crowley - Senior Skills Adviser at the CIPD (the professional body for HR and people development) - said:

“While Brexit and much talk of staff shortages in recent months may give the impression that it should be easy for young people to walk into a job, they are still often left at the back of the queue because employers tend to favour experienced workers. We want to help young people get their career off to a flying start as unemployment at a young age can leave permanent scarring - and means they’re more likely to earn less over the course of their working lives and experience more spells of unemployment. More employers also need to take a chance on young people - and be prepared to train them up - given our labour supply is changing and staff shortages are becoming more prevalent. We also don’t want them to miss out on the creativity, ingenuity and energy young people can bring to an organisation.” 

Employers are being encouraged to create jobs, internships, work experience and apprenticeships. Through a mentoring programme, the CIPD is offering jobseekers aged 18 – 24 years help with CV writing, job searching and interview technique. The mentors are all HR and recruitment professionals. 

Kevin Gaughan - Director of resourcing, learning & development at Openreach - said:

“At Openreach, we believe passionately in giving young people a chance, so we’re proud that over the last three years we’ve recruited more than 7,800 new apprentices - providing them with world class training, ‘on the job’ experience and life-long NVQ qualifications. We’re now investing billions of pounds to build a new, ultrafast full fibre broadband network throughout the UK and we can’t do that without a great team. By focusing on hiring the right individuals with the right attitude, rather than minimum educational qualifications, we’re bringing even more young people into our field and office-based teams - and the results speak for themselves. It’s helping young people take their first steps into a great career and it’s helping us to build and enhance our brilliant team - so it’s a massive win-win.”   

Figures from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) showed that the number of individuals on furlough dropped below 2 million at the end of June, for the first time since the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) was introduced in March 2020. HMRC announced that there were 540,000 employers with 1.9 million employees on furlough and this was 590,000 less than the previous month.

However, the government’s contribution is gradually being made less generous as the Chancellor Rishi Sunak prepares to bring the scheme to an end in October and experts fear many thousands will be made redundant as the support tapers off.

In July, the Government support dropped from 80 per cent to 70 per cent and from the beginning of August this was reduced to 60 per cent.

As the Government’s contribution drops, some fear that older workers are more likely to be left on furlough than their younger counterparts - currently one in 10 workers over the age of 65 were still on furlough, the highest of any age group - while younger workers were coming off furlough at a much faster rate.

Out of 250 businesses with employees still on furlough, 18 per cent told the British Chamber of Commerce that having to contribute more to furloughed staff wages meant they were likely to make redundancies.

In response, the British Chamber of Commerce stated that extra training is required to deal with the many thousands of redundancies being predicted and they also raised concerns that some older workers could find it hard to source new employment.

A Government spokesman said:

“We’ve always been clear that it’s not possible to save every job, but our Plan for Jobs is helping people of all ages find the skills they need to get back into work, including thorough the Restart Scheme, the sector-based work academy programme, and our Job Entry Targeted Support scheme.”

The Supreme Court has issued a judgement that a claimant making an allegation of discrimination at an Employment Tribunal must provide evidence that they were discriminated against in the first instance – essentially clarifying that the burden of proof is on the claimant.

The ruling came during a case brought by Mr Efobi against his employer the Royal Mail. Mr Efobi - who identifies as black African and Nigerian - had worked as a postman for the company since October 2011. He held computing qualifications and wanted to change roles and so applied for IT and management jobs between 2011 and 2015.

After being rejected for around 30 roles during this time, in June 2015 he launched a claim for indirect and direct race discrimination in relation to his job applications and harassment on grounds of race. Mr Efobi later amended the claim to include victimisation at work as a result of bringing his tribunal claim.

The victimisation and harassment claims were upheld by the initial Employment Tribunal, but the discrimination claims were dismissed on the basis that there was no evidence that the Royal Mail’s actions were linked to his race.

Following this, Mr Efobi appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, stating that the Employment Tribunal wrongly interpreted section 136(2) of the Equality Act 2010, which concerns the burden of proof in discrimination cases.

Mr Efobi also claimed that the Tribunal should have drawn adverse inference from the fact that Royal Mail had not provided evidence from anyone who had dealt with his job applications, only about how its general recruitment practices worked.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed Mr Efobi’s appeal but Royal Mail challenged this at the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal then agreed with Royal Mail that the Employment Tribunal had not made any error of law in its analysis of the evidence and reversed the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Following this, permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was then granted. However, this found that the change in wording - when the Race Relations Act 1976 was replaced by the Equality Act 2010 - did not amount to a change in the law and therefore it still requires a claimant to prove that they had been discriminated against and it is not enough for them to merely assert that they have been discriminated against.

Of the decision, Jeremy Coy, a Senior Associate in the employment team at Russell-Cooke, said:

“It’s a general principle of civil law that claimants must provide evidence that shows, on the balance of probabilities, that their allegations are well founded. This decision reinstates the initial understanding of the burden of proof in discrimination cases. A claimant must first show facts that would tend to show discrimination had occurred and it will then be for an employer to provide evidence to show otherwise.”

Experts have warned that employers risk losing workers with skills and experience if they do not include the staff in consultations over returning to the workplace.

A survey of over 1,000 UK workers - carried out by HR software provider CIPHR - has revealed employee attitudes to returning to their pre-pandemic workplace and how some employers have not helped prepare their staff for the transition back. 

The survey found that 39 per cent of workers said they had not been consulted about their return to the workplace and 40 per cent of respondents reported that they had not been asked for their views about how many days they would like to be in the office.

Prior to the pandemic, 74 per cent of respondents worked onsite at business premises and only 8 per cent worked fully remotely.  However, during the pandemic that changed, with 61 per cent of respondents being required to work at home and for higher income earners the number increased to 75 per cent of workers – 74 per cent of whom were in receipt of an annual salary of £45,000.

Although the pandemic is still not over, thousands of businesses are now running at pre-pandemic staffing capacities.  It is not back to complete normality, however, as 67 per cent of employees intend to keep wearing a face mask in their workplace, with those most likely to continue wearing masks in all indoor public settings are the 40 per cent of fully vaccinated workers – compared to 39 per cent of all workers.  Only 10 per cent of respondents stated that they no longer intend to wear a mask – and another 10 per cent have decided not to get vaccinated.

For the 16 per cent of workers whose normal place of work has not yet reopened, 40 per cent say they expect to be back by September, with a further 20 per cent by the end of the year – 11 per cent are anticipating a return sometime in 2022; 17 per cent are not aware of when they will be asked to return and 12 per cent have had their workplace permanently closed.   

In general, survey respondents were positive about returning to the workplace - 24 per cent said they felt happy to return; 22 per cent said they were looking forward to it and another 22 per cent said they felt alright about going back. Only 23 per cent who worked at home during the pandemic were anxious or “dreading” going back.

Claire Williams - Director of people and services at CIPHR - urged all employers to consult staff about changes, particularly about returning to normal working. She advised that businesses need to be considerate of employees’ rights to submit formal flexible working requests and suggested that they should gain feedback from employees about measures they would like to see implemented for their specific situation - as well as using HR solutions.

She stated:

“Above all, it’s important that people feel listened to, and that employers act on their feedback, wherever possible.”

She added a warning that “employees’ loyalty can be easily lost by a failure to communicate, especially following a period where employers have had to call on a huge amount of goodwill from their workforce.”

The Department for Work and Pensions has been billed £87.9m over historic IR35 status contractor assessment errors - and experts state that this demonstrates the risk of relying on the check employment status tool (CEST) provided by the HMRC.    

Details of this payment were revealed in the publication of the Department for Work and Pensions most recent accounts, which outline expenditure made by the department during the 2020-21 financial year. The errors were found in March 2020, following a review by HMRC into the Department for Work and Pensions’ implementation of the IR35 tax avoidance reforms.   

The IR35 tax avoidance reforms came into force in the public sector in April 2017 and from this date, organisations assumed responsibility for determining if the contractors they engage with should be taxed in the same way as permanent, salaried employees, i.e. inside IR35.  However, although they would be expected to pay the same tax and Nation Insurance contributions as a permanent employee, they are not entitled to receive the same workplace benefits as a salaried worker. 

Outside IR35 - or off-payroll workers - are determined based on the work they do and how it is performed. Prior to April 2017, it was left to the contractors themselves to declare whether their engagements were inside IR35 or not.

Matt Fryer - Head of Legal Services at Brookson Legal - said:

“Businesses are somewhat reliant on CEST because it’s free, but clearly what may not have hit home is that you still need a general understanding of employment status to ensure you’re answering the questions correctly. This is a clear example of the risk involved in using online tools such as CEST to determine IR35 status. Relying on CEST alone does not demonstrate reasonable care or protect against HMRC fines.”

Matt Fryer added that - with the same rules now being applied in the private sector - employers should pay close attention to how the rule is being enforced in the public sector.

HMRC has said it will not charge any penalties on private sector businesses until April 2022.

Alison Woods - Partner and co-head of employment at international law firm CMS - warned that the Department for Work and Pensions bill “highlights that HMRC’s audit powers are wide should they choose to use them”.

Dave Chaplin - Chief Executive of IR35 Shield - said:

“The entire situation is absurd.”

He remarked that any additional tax paid by the Department for Work and Pensions would eventually “filter its way back” adding:

“The Department of Work and Pensions clearly would not bother spending hundreds of thousands of pounds to defend the status, when overall the rise in the coffers for the Treasury will be effectively zero.”

Kate Cottrell - Managing Director of Bauer and Cottrell - IR35 and Off-Payroll status specialists - stated that most businesses would not be able to foot a bill that big and said it was “a lesson for all medium and large businesses currently faced with the same rules”. 

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

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

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

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

She said:

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

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

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

She said:

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

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

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

Steve Herbert - Howden Head of Benefits Strategy - stated:

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

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

She added:

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

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

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

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

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

She stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Senior HR Business Partner added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said:

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

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

He added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jamie Milroy - CEO of DASH Rides - commented:

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

He added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Godfrey Ryan - CEO of Kura - stated:

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

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

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

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

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

He added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He said:

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

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

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

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

She warned, though:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lordan went on to say:

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

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

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

The Association of Professional Staffing Companies and the Recruitment and Employment Confederation have surveyed 105 staffing companies and 348 individual recruitment professionals - finding that 41 per cent of recruitment firms are not recording any demographic data on their workforce and leadership teams. This has the effect of making it difficult to identify which demographics are not fully represented.

Time and resources for not recording the diversity of the workforce is cited by 6 per cent of respondents; 4 per cent feel that they do not have the expertise; 38 per cent considered that their organisation was too small and 26 per cent simply had not considered it.

Neil Carberry - Chief Executive of the Recruitment and Employment Confederation - says that recruitment, more than any other sector, sits “at the heart of workplace diversity and inclusion”, opening opportunities to millions of people every year, adding:

“The glaring finding of the report is a lack of effective diversity monitoring in some recruitment businesses. As the old saying goes, what gets measured gets managed, so effective data collection needs to spread more broadly across the industry.”

The bodies’ UK Recruitment Diversity & Inclusion Index shows that although most of the recruitment sector workforce is made up of women, at senior level there is an even balance between men and women.

The research also found that 65 per cent of organisations were not collecting data on the sexual orientation of their workforce and 55 per cent do not record this among their senior leadership team; 46 per cent were not recording the ethnicities of their workforce and 40 per cent were not collecting any information on age.

Religious beliefs at 90 per cent and staff qualifications at 73 per cent were the least likely data to be recorded.   However, responses from individuals show the recruitment industry is made up of 47 per cent Christian; 31 per cent atheist; 13 per cent agnostic and 7 per cent spiritual.

Although 47 per cent did not record the data, 33 per cent of corporate respondents say up to a quarter of their workforce had a disability.

Ann Swain - Chief Executive of the Association of Professional Staffing Companies - stated:

“When we first embarked on this collaborative research, our hope had been to identify what the current make-up of the recruitment sector looked like, any discrepancies between corporate and individual views and where diversity may be lacking. What we found, though, was a more pressing issue - a lack of information. Without a clear and honest picture of your workforce, it will be difficult for staffing companies to identify where there are gaps or what demographics are currently under-represented.”

She added:

“But there are restrictions on what employers can and can’t ask staff and how recruitment businesses approach the tracking of sensitive personal data will require careful management and guidance.”

At a recent online conference, Lord Hodge - Deputy President of the Supreme Court and EWI President - gave the keynote address, during which he explored the critical role of the expert witness in the administration of justice.

Lord Hodge then gave examples from several cases and on impartiality he cited the case of the ‘Ikarian Reefer’ - in which Mr Justice Cresswell laid out the judicial expectation of the expert witness.  This is now codified in England and Wales in practice direction 35, supplementing CPR part 35.

In addition, Lord Hodge went on to offer his own observations, stating that independence and impartiality - whilst appearing to be obvious - was causing concern in some cases.  He cited a 2019 survey of expert witnesses in which 25 per cent of respondents stated that they had felt pressurised to change their report in a way that damaged their impartiality.

An expert witness must also be an expert and additionally, whilst undertaking the task, must be aware and competent in their duties to the court and undertake continual critical examination of their own work or opinion.

Lord Hodge stated that clarity of thought and clarity of expression or presentation of the evidence will assist the judge greatly and stressed that it was imperative that expert witnesses take full responsibility throughout the process of preparation and presentation for his or her opinion evidence.

He went on to quote Judge Claire Evans, who had remarked:

“There are plenty not very good experts around. Some soi-disants experts are worse than not very good, they do great harm.”

Lord Hodge then praised specialist organisation and institutions - such as the EWI - for their role in minimising the occurrence of harmful expert witnesses by advocating high standards in expert evidence.

Discussing the part that lawyers and instructing parties played - not just by ascertaining that an expert did possess the necessary expertise and making them aware of their duty to the court - but by ensuring that the expert witness was aware of all the facts of the case, Lord Hodge referred again to the 2019 survey, stating,

“Lawyers must do better. They may obtain useful assistance on best practice on consulting experts in guidance issued by the Civil Justice Council.”

He continued to say that lawyers must improve their scientific and technical literacy to do their job effectively in cases concerning experts and testimony.

Whilst the task of policing compliance with an expert’s duties falls to the court, he said that “judges, lawyers and experts have to face the future together”.

Reflecting on the impact of Covid-19, Lord Hodge stated that he was aware that times had not been good for expert witnesses during the pandemic. He mentioned difficulty in carrying out physical site visits or examinations and the financial impact - either through postponed trials or delays in payment. However, he pointed out that not all consequences of the pandemic were bad. In the words of the Lord Chief Justice, it was “the biggest pilot project the justice system has ever seen.”  For example, online filing had been introduced at the Supreme Court and that practice would continue. This would save money and have a positive environmental impact.

Lord Hodge also said that he expected that remote hearings were here to stay - particularly for incidental and case management business and there was scope for more radical changes within the judicial system in the coming years.

He concluded by saying that the conference presented an opportunity to enhance the contribution of expert witnesses and those lawyers who work with them in support of that aim, re-iterating that “judges, lawyers and experts have to face the future together”.

According to research, a skills crisis is affecting productivity and growth in many UK industries and the education system is not providing their needs. Additionally, investment in skills development, by organisations, has not recovered since the 2008 recession.

A survey carried out by City & Guilds Group and Emsi - a labour market analytics company - revealed that 61 per cent of the 2,000 working age adults polled say they do not feel equipped with all the skills they will need for the next five years - with 64 per cent stating that they had not received any training in the past year and 30 per cent not receiving any workplace training in the past year.  The survey attributed this to budget restraint due to the pandemic.

To understand the impact of the lack of skills, over 1,000 UK employers were polled to find out how they are faring in terms of recruiting and training the skilled workers - and what challenges they see as being on the horizon.

• 90 per cent of employers said that they struggle with skills gaps.
• 47 per cent of employers stated that skills gaps were the internal factor most likely to impact their future productivity.
• 47 per cent of employers said that managers and team leaders were the most difficult jobs to fill. 
• 11 per cent of employers said that they never struggle to recruit the skilled staff they need.
• 19 per cent stated that they struggle all the time to recruit the skilled staff that they need.
• 66 per cent of employers anticipated the skills gaps will stay the same or worsen.
• 33 per cent of employers think that skills gaps in their business will improve during the next three to five years.

The report showed that just 9 per cent of workers said that they were confident they had advanced digital skills, whilst 22 per cent of employers surveyed wanted advanced digital skills.

Two in five - 42 per cent - of employers said that they intended to invest in training and development to tackle skills gaps; 36 per cent stated that they planned to recruit apprentices or trainees; 14 per cent planned to recruit or retrain older workers and 20 per cent stated that they would retrain or recruit older workers.

Kirstie Donnelly - CEO of City & Guilds Group - stated that individuals, employers and the UK government needed to change their attitude regarding skills. 

“It is no longer possible to leave full-time education at 18 or 21 and never reskill again. We will require people and businesses to upskill and reskill throughout their working lives.”

She added:

“It’s clear that employers and employees may both struggle to keep pace with the rapid changes in skills needs being driven by factors such as AI and the move to net zero.”

Jane Hickie - Chief Executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers - said that the present system for funding adult skills was “bureaucratic and too slow” to respond to the changes in the world of work. She recommended that more should be done to support acceptance of the government’s national adult digital entitlement.

During a High Court trial - Dana UK AXLE Ltd v Freudenberg FST GmbH - three expert witness statements were excluded after Mrs Justice Joanna Smith ruled that their opinions appeared to have been influenced by the party instructing them – resulting in multiple breaches of a pre-trial order; the rules on expert evidence and the 2014 guidance on instructing experts in civil claims.

Mrs Justice Joanna Smith stated “…… establishment of a level playing field in cases involving experts requires careful oversight and control on the part of the lawyers instructing those experts especially when the experts were from other jurisdictions.”

She added:

“For reasons which have not been explained, there has been no such oversight or control over the experts in this case. The use of experts only works when everyone plays by the same rules. If those rules are flouted, the level playing field abandoned and the need for transparency ignored, as has occurred in this case, then the fair administration of justice is put directly at risk.”

On day seven of the trial, Dana applied to exclude Freudenberg FST’s technical expert evidence.  At the pre-trial review, Mrs Justice O’Farrell ordered that Freudenberg FST would be permitted to rely on its technical experts, subject to meeting three conditions.

Mrs Justice Smith found that Freudenberg FST had committed a “serious breach” of the requirement to provide full details of all materials provided to the experts, as a disclosure of documents made during the trial showed that a significant amount of information was provided to each of the Freudenberg FST experts that had never been disclosed to Dana or otherwise identified.  The judge also stated that it was clear Freudenberg FST experts had “unfettered and unsupervised access” to personnel and were provided with information during calls and virtual meetings.

She stated:

“However, there is no record of any of these calls or meetings and no record of the precise nature of the information that was provided.”

Two witness statements about the evidence were provided by Alexander Wildschutz of City firm Fladgate – who act for Freudenberg FST.  In pre-trial correspondence, the firm had confirmed disclosure of all the documents which were the basis of the experts’ opinion.  Mrs Justice Smith observed that this was an assertion which seemed to be entirely mistaken.

The judge went on to say that it was “difficult to square” the first statement made by Mr Wildschutz – stating that the discussions made between Freudenberg FST and the experts were solely telephone calls to two of them requesting assistance with locating documents and technical information or logistical assistance – with evidence that “Mr Wildschutz already had this available to him at the time of his statement” showing that the discussions were far more detailed.

Mrs Justice Smith went on to say:

“Mr Wildschutz explains that he now regrets that he did not ask Mr Bauer (a Freudenberg FST contact) to keep a note of these conversations.

It is most unfortunate, to say the least, that Mr Wildschutz does not appear to have considered it necessary to supervise the interactions that were quite clearly taking place on a regular basis between FST and its experts.”

She added that Freudenberg FST’s failure to comply was “not just a technical or unimportant breach” adding:

“Where experts are liaising directly with their clients to obtain information which is not recorded (because there is no legal involvement and no vigilance on the part of the expert in keeping detailed contemporaneous notes of such contact and in providing those notes to his or her instructing solicitor), there can be no transparency around the information to which they have been privy and no equality of arms with their opposing experts of like discipline.”

The judge went on to say that the 2014 guidance specifically contemplated that instructions would be provided to experts by solicitors.

She added:

“However, it should go without saying that parties cannot get around this requirement for transparency by engaging directly with their experts and by-passing any involvement on the part of their solicitors.”

Mrs Justice Smith said she was “inclined to agree” when Dana’s solicitor, Ms Nicola Phillips of Crowell & Moring, stated that the failure to comply with the order was “unlikely to have been inadvertent” - as complying would have revealed breaches of CPR 35.  She found that “the experts’ analyses and opinions would appear to have been directly influenced by FST” and continued:

“I think there is some justification for the suggestion [by Ms Phillips] that FST has interposed itself in the experts’ reports to such a degree that they cannot confidently be said to be the result of the experts’ independent analysis.”

Research carried out on 750 senior financial and HR decision makers in UK small businesses between 14 and 22 March 2021 by 3Gem - a market research company - has shown that 21 per cent of small businesses expect to lay off staff by September.

In addition, 90 per cent of those surveyed say that they have been approached by employees with their worries - 32 per cent have concerns about losing their jobs; 28 per cent have concerns about their personal finances after the pandemic and 21 per cent worry about a reduction in their salary.

Digital employee benefits service provider, Worklife, has based their Small Business Monitor on this research - which reveals that 29 per cent of small businesses have had to furlough staff since November 2020; 25 per cent have had to cut staff hours; 22 per cent have reduced pay and 20 per cent have been unable to offer an annual salary increase.

With the Bank of England predicting that unemployment will peak at 5.5 per cent when the furlough scheme finishes, Worklife’s analysis has found that 14 per cent of permanent small business jobs and 9 per cent of temporary small business jobs are potentially at risk.

Regarding income, 31 per cent believe that their revenue will increase, but 45 per cent think that revenue will remain quiet over the next year - pointing to the fact that the future for some employees will be uncertain.

Steve Bee - Director WorkLife - states that this demonstrates the need for employers to rebuild their businesses and the confidence and wellbeing of their staff, also. 

He commented:

“While the past year has been tough for bosses, things haven’t exactly been rosy for their employees, many of whom now face continued job insecurity alongside higher living costs due to rising inflation. So, while ensuring the business is equipped to meet future operational challenges will be crucial, just as important will be supporting the wellbeing of staff as we move through the recovery phase. For firms facing continued income issues and thinking they might need to cut employee numbers, it’s important to note that the most valuable support won’t come through direct and expensive remuneration, but rather by embracing flexibility and offering genuine understanding towards people’s worries and concerns. This might be achieved through allowing people time away from work to interview if they’re facing redundancy or looking at offering low-cost benefits such as shopping vouchers to boost people’s pay packets if they’re not getting an annual salary increase. 

Whatever situation the business is in, over the next few months a key priority should be providing an affordable but meaningful benefits package for staff that provides genuine support for the day-to-day challenges they might encounter.”

Between June 2020 and March 2021, software company, Culture Amp, carried out a global survey on 4,841 people, of which 683 UK HR professionals participated.  As a result of the findings, experts say that it is vital that people in the HR profession keep a check on their own wellbeing.

As HR professionals work with every department of a company - forcing them to be great at juggling different tasks and needs - and are often the people who create and implement wellness and mental health programmes, they often experience burnout themselves.

The survey showed that just 39 per cent of those polled thought that they felt well able to cope with the demands of both their work and personal life at present.  This is a fall of 7 per cent from the second quarter of 2020, when 46 per cent of respondents replied that they could balance their work and personal lives.

The same percentage - 39 per cent of respondents - agreed that they were equipped to deal with the requirements of their role, such as operational and people or cultural responsibilities.  This was also down from 46 per cent in the second quarter of 2020.

According to experts, short 10 to 15-minute breaks are essential for people to take a moment to relax and regroup. However, only 31 per cent of respondents stated that they were able to take regular breaks throughout the day. This was down from 43 per cent last year - whilst 31 per cent agreed they were able to effectively switch off from work, down from 36 per cent in 2020.

Nick Matthews - General Manager and Vice President for EMEA at Culture Amp - said the figures made for “concerning reading”, at a time when employers were preparing to bring their employees back to the workplace or were contemplating hybrid working.

He said:

“Business leaders need to be proactive in supporting HR teams as they recover from their heroic pandemic efforts and recognise that their roles have evolved and will be even more relevant in this new world. It’s imperative that HR takes the time to check-in on their own wellbeing and calibrate their work-life boundaries if necessary.”

Despite this however, it was found that 60 per cent of HR professionals said - in the first quarter of this year - that they could see that their work was having a positive difference.  This percentage had dropped though, from 73 per cent last year.

Since HR work is outside any other department, it can have access to more than just the HR team for assistance. When help is needed assistance should be requested - and 55 per cent of respondents did say they felt supported by the other people at work when they needed it. This figure is down from 67 per cent last year. Just 49 per cent said they were feeling productive - again, down from 67 per cent last year.

It will require close collaboration between business leaders and HR to ensure that employees know how to adapt appropriately to office reopening.

People Management surveyed 556 HR professionals and senior management to find out what apprehensions are being felt by both employees and employers - and what preparations businesses are already making to ensure success.

Last month it was confirmed by the Prime Minister that - provided the infection rates remained under control - the government’s advice that people in England should work from home, if possible, would be withdrawn in mid-June.

The survey found that 83 per cent of respondents said that their workforce was optimistic about returning - but there were some concerns.  HR professionals will be required to keep in touch with employees through frequent communication about upcoming plans, to help reduce anxiety about returning to the office. In extreme cases, if some workers do not want to return - and businesses force the issue - employees could decide to leave their jobs.

Of the respondents to the survey, 53 per cent said their staff were worried about contracting coronavirus in the workplace and 43 per cent said their employees were worried about contracting it on public transport. Another main concern for 21 per cent of respondents was childcare - with 46 per cent worrying about care for people other than children.

Rachel Suff - Senior Policy Adviser for employment relations at the CIPD - said that coronavirus was still an issue and work arrangements would still be disrupted - particularly for those with caring responsibilities for children, or others. 

She stated:

“People's circumstances in some cases have changed over the past 15 months, so their needs will have changed. Organisations needed to be proactive in having those conversations and giving guidance to everybody about what procedures to keep them safe will be in play and what role they as individuals have got to play in that as well.”

Extra mental health support for those returning from working from home was promised by 62 per cent of HR professionals; 34 per cent said they would provide it for workers returning to the office from furlough; 57 per cent said that their organisation would provide homeworkers with training on Covid guidelines and 35 per cent offered to provide Covid guidelines training to furloughed workers.

Most of respondents to the poll run by People Management - 94 per cent - said that staff would be able to work in the office, with 40 per cent saying that staff would be able to go in on days specifically chosen by them and 35 per cent saying that workers would be able to go in on days allocated to them by the business.  Only 15 per cent of respondents said that they planned to make attendance at the office mandatory - and 4 per cent said that staff were only required to go into the office to attend meetings.

When asked how organisations would manage employees who did not want to return to the office at all, 43 per cent said they would require staff to attend the office for a minimum number of days, whilst 40 per cent said they would support home working - provided staff were able to commit to frequent office visits for meetings.

According to the respondents to the survey, 57 per cent reported that their workforce was worried about the extra time taken up by commuting, whilst 44 per cent were concerned about reverting to more structured hours.

Gemma Dale - a Senior HR professional and co-founder of The Work Consultancy - said that giving workers autonomy in when and how they worked allowed for a productive workforce.

She said:

“When people have got lots of control, and lots of autonomy, that's a good predictor for wellbeing and good mental health. Think about flexibility in its broadest sense.”

She urged employers to consider offering flexible hours and not just the option of working from home.

According to a study of over 1,000 UK office workers - conducted by flexible office specialists Workthere - those aged 25-34 years old are the most likely to expect more flexibility in their typical working week, post the pandemic.

Amongst the 25-34 year olds, 87 per cent now expect to be able to request flexible working in the future - as opposed to only 60 per cent of those aged over 55 years.

The wish for shorter hours and more flexibility is particularly obvious amongst younger staff, with 79 per cent stating that they already work less than 38 hours per week - the national average.  

However, it was found that 45-54 years old workers were twice as likely to work more than 38 hours, with 40 per cent stating that they are overworked - compared with only 20 per cent of the younger employees.

Nearly 86 per cent of workers in the younger age bracket said that their ideal working week would be less than 38 hours a week, as opposed to 78 per cent of 45-54 year old workers.

Workthere predicts that the growing pursuit of flexibility could remain for generations to come as a more relaxed approach to work appears amongst younger employees.

The BBC has revealed - through research - that at least a million UK employees are not expected to work at their office after the crisis. Of the UK’s biggest employers, 86 per cent have committed to flexible working for staff.

Cal Lee - Global Head of Workthere - remarked:

“With so many people working from home over the last year, it’s clear that this is altering the approach and attitude towards what we previously perceived to be a standard working week.

With the younger generations now used to having flexibility in their week, be it when or where they work, it appears this desire for more freedom is a trend that is set to develop further as the UK continues to recover from the pandemic.

This in turn may see more and more businesses re-evaluate their previous practices and make changes to accommodate this.”

Global talent assessment platform provider - Thomas International - recently conducted research with over 500 HR and Talent leaders across a variety of sectors.  The result of this suggests that recruitment processes in the UK are broken, with more than half of all new hires not working out as planned.

The managers researched were asked how they hire; the common challenges they face; what works in their hiring process and what does not - as 57 per cent of new hires made in the last 12 months are not working out in some way and 25 per cent are not working at all.

The result of the research disclosed a trust gap in recruitment, which is growing. Of the 500 senior managers and recruiters researched, 46 per cent found that there was a poor job fit between the role being offered and the applicant and 44 per cent found a poor job fit between the applicant and culture.  These are the two top reasons found for the hires not being successful.

After the disorder caused by the coronavirus pandemic, the average cost in the UK of hiring a new employee was found to have escalated to £3,000 - as businesses are battling to return to normal.

Additionally, the research has shown up an assortment of issues are at the base of the failed hires and undermining trust in the recruiting procedure.  These were found to be complicated and drawn-out processes, as cited by 31 per cent of respondents; an inability to test culture or role fit by 31 per cent and over dependence on gut instinct by 29 per cent of respondents.  Nearly a third of managers researched quoted a lack of transparency, while 41 per cent state that finding the right candidate in a remote hiring environment has been their biggest recruitment challenge.  However, it has been suggested that recruitment was broken since before the pandemic.

Sabby Gill - CEO of Thomas International - stated:

“Recruitment is broken. Businesses that don’t take action to fix it will face significant challenges as they look to accelerate hiring over the next couple of years, establish workforces that are fit for the future, and rebuild and reshape teams to take advantage of new economic opportunities.”

The report on the research states that 30 per cent are in agreement and think that it is vital that recruitment procedures are improved - with 55 per cent stating it is important to evolve hiring systems and to launch a different approach to recruitment.  If executed well, this will close the trust gap that is undermining hiring.

It cannot be ignored that remote working due to the virus is having an impact on recruitment - 44 per cent of businesses said that it is their biggest driver of reshaping existing hiring practices. 

Sabby Gill added:

“Recruitment is on the rise in 2021 after a slow year, so getting things right is vital. Hiring managers need to look beyond the CV to an individual’s true potential. If you find the right person – through aptitude and behavioural testing – then you don’t need to worry about which university degree they have. With the right training, apprenticeship schemes and more, British businesses can not only solve the skills gaps they’re facing now, but also plan ahead for the jobs in the future that don’t even exist yet.”

The British Chambers of Commerce have published new survey data showing that only 5 per cent of businesses have implemented requirements for proof of vaccination.

More than 1,000 UK businesses were surveyed, showing that firms with more than 50 staff were more likely than smaller firms to be considering vaccine certification but 69 per cent presently having no plans to do so, 6 per cent stating that they were likely to do so in the future and 11 per cent saying they needed more information.

The data also showed that 76 per cent of firms expect social distancing and 54 per cent wearing face masks - plus hand sanitising - as the Covid-19 measures that firms are most likely to expect to continue to have in place over the next 12 months.

The figures come just a few days after the Prime Minister confirmed government plans to drop advice to work from home from 21 June - providing that the current easing of coronavirus restrictions continues to go to plan. The British Chambers of Commerce have called on the government to provide clear and decisive guidance to businesses regarding the use of vaccine certification.

Hannah Essex - Co-Executive Director of the BCC - said:

 “Businesses have worked hard to keep their customers and employees safe throughout the pandemic and will continue to do so. This research shows that Government must quickly clarify what measures will be required for businesses to maintain safety standards after we reach the final stage of the roadmap on June 21st.  In particular they must resolve the ongoing debate around the use of vaccine certification, providing clear and decisive guidance to business.

There has been a great deal of mixed signals on the issue of businesses being required to demand proof of vaccination from customers, suppliers or employees. Our figures show that as it stands, the vast majority of firms have no plans in place for such a scenario. So, if government is indeed planning to make this a requirement, then it must act rapidly to inform businesses so that they can adjust and prepare.

Right now, many businesses are working on the assumption that they will be continuing with a variety of Covid-secure measures over the next 12 months including social distancing, mask wearing and various other interventions. Many of these measures come at a cost to business and can restrict firms’ ability to trade at full capacity. Government must clearly set out when, and in what way, it will be safe to change these practises so that businesses can fully play their part in the economic recovery from the pandemic.”

Rachel Suff - Senior Employment Relations Adviser at the CIPD - said employers needed to be very careful if demanding proof of vaccination from employees, as this was sensitive personal health data.

She said:

“Employers need to comply with data protection rules.”

She added:

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

Alan Price - CEO of BrightHR - agreed that employers should focus on other methods of controlling the spread of the virus - encouraging staff to take the vaccine by outlining the benefits of doing so. 

He said:

“Employers may find it challenging to implement the requirement for employees to have been vaccinated in order to work or continue working for them.”

Official data from the Office for National Statistics has shown that many over-50s have worked less hours since the pandemic.  And, in addition, they are more likely to be made redundant - negatively affecting their employment prospects.

Of the 1.3 million people who were furloughed, more than 25 per cent were over 50 years of age, with 30 per cent of the workers on furlough of the opinion that there is a 50 per cent - or higher - chance that they will lose their job when furlough ends.

Between the months of December 2020 and February 2021, the employment rate for those aged between 50 to 64 years dropped from 72 per cent to 71 per cent and for those aged 65 years and over, it fell from 11.5 per cent to 10 per cent.  Those over 50 years also saw the highest increase in redundancy over the same period - more than doubling from 4.3 to 9.7 per thousand.  

One in eight employees over 50 years of age were also found to have made alternative retirement plans - with 8 per cent now expecting to retire later than originally planned.

Nye Cominetti - Senior Economist at the think tank - said:

“The cost of unemployment for older workers is particularly high. They take the longest to return to work - with fewer than two in three returning within six months - and experience the biggest earnings fall when they finally return to work. In the face of the current crisis, unemployed older workers may have to either work for longer to make up for these negative employment effects or retire earlier than they planned to.”

The Resolution Foundation has also reported that - after consistent employment growth for older workers since the mid-1990s, employment among workers aged 50 to 69 years fell by 1.4 per cent since the start of the pandemic.

Angela Watson - Age Campaign Manager at Business in the Community - said:

“It is very concerning that the number of older workers is falling after a long-term rising trend, and redundancies among people over 50 are rising too.”

She added:

“On the eve of the pandemic, over-50s in the workplace were at an all-time high. But now the trend has reversed and, with large numbers of older workers on furlough, more over-50s face redundancy when that ends. But this talent doesn’t need to be wasted and creating an age-inclusive culture is the key to make sure that everyone can feel included at work. Many of the one in seven employees who are caring for an older, ill or disabled person are older workers, and businesses need to offer flexible working patterns. They also need to support the health needs of older employees, such as menopause, help people of all ages develop their careers, and make sure their recruitment policies are fair and not biased against older candidates. By taking these steps, businesses will create an inclusive culture and ensure that age doesn’t limit a person’s success.” 

Emily Andrews - Senior Evidence Manager at the Centre for Ageing Better - also warned that the pandemic could cause people to drop out of the labour market early, saying:

“Working life does not stop at 55.  As this recession unfolds, we need a strong message from the government and employers that older workers have just as much right to a job as younger ones.  It's also important to remember that when the furlough scheme ends, many employees may not have worked for 18 months or more - and whether they are facing job losses, a change of industry or a return to work, many will need flexible retraining opportunities.” 

A recent health care survey conducted for health care provider Koa Health has found that HR managers now spend an average of 31 per cent more of their time each month on mental health support for employees than before the pandemic. 

People’s declining mental health has increased by 400 per cent from the last week of February 2020 to the final week of May 2020, resulting in 72 per cent of UK companies increasing the level of mental health support to employees since the beginning of the pandemic. Additionally - over the next year - 66 per cent plan to increase the level of mental health support they provide.

Despite investment being increased and the importance of mental health and wellbeing being recognised, it is still not being fully rooted in business culture, with 43 per cent of companies in the UK stating that it is not a priority.  This rises to just over half of companies with a £100m turnover or higher. Next year, one in nine companies with 3,000 employees or more are planning to decrease their level of support for mental health.

Dr Oliver Harrison - CEO of Koa Health - believes the scale of mental health challenges faced by UK employees has positioned it as the second, silent pandemic of the time.

He told HR magazine:

“For many HR managers, supporting the mental wellbeing of a dispersed workforce throughout and the pandemic will have been the greatest challenge of their career. Without any notice, they had to scramble support, spending an average of 30 per cent more of their time providing mental health support to team members.”

Looking to the future, Dr Harrison said that organisations’ response to the effects of the pandemic recovery will profoundly affect both team members’ mental health and company productivity.

He added:

“That’s why it’s critical that companies act now to move beyond the scramble of 2020 to create a clear recovery plan that embeds mental health as a cultural priority across the business.”

Nicola Tope - HR director at photography provider iStock - said that it is very important that HR teams normalise discussing mental health.

She stated:

“Our HR team have encouraged leaders to be open about their own care so that employees are more comfortable or at least less self-conscious when they need to ask for support for themselves.  This is also bolstered by the robust mental health benefits we provide and a multi-layered approach to educating employees and managers about the importance of taking care, whether that’s through webinars, our communications channels or 1:1 coaching.”

Adding that open discussions around mental health and care implementation should be at the top of HR’s agenda as the pandemic continues, she added:

“Initiatives such as meeting-free days and flexible working policies will give employees the support they need to continue to work and collaborate effectively”.

Dr Oliver Harrison further added:

“The rest of 2021 will be critical for staff wellbeing, as UK organisations shift back to a new kind of normal, with hybrid working widely expected to take hold for a lot of sectors. Organisations’ response to the aftermath of the pandemic and this shift to a new normal will make or break individuals’ mental health, not to mention company productivity. With economic recovery predicted to be slow amid ongoing uncertainty, ensuring all workforces are as productive as possible will be a high priority for HR managers over the coming year.”

Standard Life Aberdeen have released their Class of 2021 report - which includes a survey of people who intend to retire this year.

Of those surveyed - with 60 being the average age of the Class of 2021 retiree - 37% say they have sped up their retirement date in the past 12 months, while 12% have delayed it.

The report found that although many of the respondents were looking forward to giving up work, many had no intention of doing so fully, with 56% not planning to give up work altogether. The report stated “Whether it be a financial or emotional driver, the growing trend of working in retirement is clear from our research.”

Just over a quarter (27%) planned to work part-time rather than leave employment altogether, 22% plan to reduce their hours, nearly one in five (19%) will spend time volunteering while 6% wanted to start their own business.

These figures are higher in comparison to those who retired in 2020 during the height of the pandemic, as just over a third (34%) of last year’s retirees decided to continue working to some degree.

Ben Hampton, Head of Retirement Advice at Standard Life Aberdeen stated:

“Longer life expectancy, volatile investment markets and ever-changing regulation are just some of the reasons why the notion of ‘retiring’ is currently in flux, not to mention the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on people’s immediate and longer-term financial priorities and plans.”

Of those surveyed, the average value of their pension pot is £366,000, however a third have less than £100,000 and 21% need to sell their property or downsize to fund retirement.

The retirees plan to spend an average £21,000 a year (which is about £10,000 below the average UK household income of £29,000). However, to cover this spend over the course of a 30 year retirement, a retiree would need around £390,000 in savings on top of their State Pension income - which for the year 2021/2022 is £179.60 per week, or around £9,000 a year.

In actual fact, it is more likely than not that the retirees of 2021 will need much more than £21,000 per annum when inflation is taken into account. Even so, based on this average spend, two thirds of the Class of 2021 still risk running out of money in retirement.

Women feel far less financially ready to retire than men – with 34% feeling very confident versus 43% of men but despite all of these concerns, 96% of 2021 retirees say they feel emotionally prepared to retire, while 93% also think they are financially ready.

About 200,000 women could be due around £13,500 each, after an investigation found state pension administration errors that date back decades.

A joint investigation by This is Money pensions columnist (and former Pension Minister) Steve Webb and journalist Tanya Jefferies, found there was a failure to pay automatic increases to the state pensions of wives, widows and the over-80s who hit state pension age before April 2016 and should have qualified for boosted payments due to their husband’s National Insurance record. Some of the affected women received pensions of as little as 86p a week, when they were in fact entitled to 60% of the basic state pension – about £80 a week.

A team of 155 civil servants is working to trace every woman affected and pay them any money owed. But the task could take six years and recent Budget documents revealed that it is likely to cost the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) around £3billion to rectify.

Those affected include the following:

• Married women whose husband turned 65 before 17 March 2008 and who have never claimed an uplift;
• Widows whose pension was not increased when their husband died (they can potentially receive a full basic State Pension, plus a percentage of their late husband’s additional State Pension);
• Widows whose pension is now correct, but who may have been underpaid while their husband was still alive, particularly if they reached 65 after 17 March 2008;
• Women over the age of 80 who are receiving a basic pension of less than £80.45, provided they satisfied a basic residence test when they turned 80;
• Widowers and heirs of married women, where the woman has died but was underpaid the State Pension during their life, especially when their husband turned 65 after 17 March 2008;
• Divorced women, particularly those who divorced after they retired, who need to establish whether are benefitting from the contributions of their ex-husband.

Labour Pension Commission Chairman Stephen Timms MP has asked the DWP to explain how payments will be prioritized - whether payments will be made in the order of age or unpaid amount for example and how the heirs of those who died will be contacted.

The Work After Lockdown research project studied why some home workers are more productive than others and how firms respond.

The result of remote working is causing some businesses to re-evaluate their assumption that they get the highest output when staff work longer hours or under close supervision.

Many major firms - professional services group PwC for instance - have been sufficiently impressed by remote working to make it a permanent option for their staff. For some employees working from home is an opportunity to focus and to be super productive, whilst also giving them the opportunity to take the dog for a walk or to remain in their pyjamas all day.

However, some workers find concentration difficult and spend eight hours doing nothing more than answering a couple of emails and daydreaming. David Solomon, CEO Goldman Sachs, has rejected remote working as an “aberration that we’re going to correct as soon as possible”.

The results of the survey - in which 1,085 respondents working from home in the UK were asked about their productivity - have recently been published.

The respondents were asked whether they felt that their productivity was the same, better or worse compared to pre-lockdown and 54 per cent thought they got a little more, or much more done per hour worked, than before lockdown. When this was combined with the result of those who reported productivity as being the same as before lockdown, it showed that 90 per cent of employees had maintained or improved their productivity - leaving only 10 per cent reporting that their productivity had gone down.

When questioned about their mental health, the respondents were scored using the World Health Organisation index, which showed that better mental health was associated with higher productivity.  The mental health scores for the most productive workers were twice those of the least productive but it was not clear whether poor mental health score contributes to the decline in productivity, or the high productivity boosts the mental health.

Over 90 per cent of the respondents reported that they could concentrate on one activity for a long time; 94 per cent were able to use the autonomy given them by their employer to re-order work tasks; 85 per cent did not get distracted from the task in hand and 83 per cent could return to their task after an interruption.  Those who could self-regulate in these ways were positively correlated with high productivity per hour worked.

Seventy-three per cent of the survey respondents reported that their ideal working pattern would allow them to vary their place of work to reflect the tasks they were performing.

Matthew Davis - Associate Professor at Leeds University Business School - said that highly social, extroverted people may have a more difficult time working from home without the “water-cooler chat”.   He added that those who rely on their social environment to enjoy their jobs, stave off monotony and keep up motivation may find themselves disadvantaged.    

He went on to say that - even though they may thrive working alone - introverts do not necessarily find home working better, as they can find video calls difficult due to discomfort with being the sole focus of a camera and having to speak in group chats. He says that a balance of introversion and extroversion qualities may be a best for productivity.   

Despite women-led businesses showing a global growth, funding is a major challenge.

Research by Workplace Specialists Instant Offices has revealed that 35 per cent of women business founders are still facing gender bias whilst attempting to raise business capital - raising an average of 5 per cent less funding than men in a similar position.  Studies such as this show that men are significantly more likely to become entrepreneurs than women, despite an encouraging growth from four years ago when the number was only 17 per cent.

Statistics show that female business owners are most likely to run a one-woman business, with 37.7 per cent working alone; 27.1 per cent employing two to three staff and 23.4 per cent having teams of four or more.

Businesses owned by women were found to have a bigger turnover rate – not due to failure of the business but for personal reasons, probably to start a family or for childcare problems.  This most prevalent among women aged 25 to 34 years of age.

UK businesses with the highest percentage of female versus male entrepreneurs include Hair & Beauty with 76 per cent female versus 24 per cent male; Consumables with 64 per cent female against 36 per cent male and Wellness with 63 per cent female versus 37 per cent male.

By comparison, women are most under-represented as business owners in Electronics & Appliances, with only 3 per cent female versus 97 per cent male; Construction services with 5 per cent female against 95 per cent male and Outdoor & Garden services, having 5 per cent female versus 95 per cent male.

With funding for women continuing to be a significant challenge, it was found that women are 81 per cent less likely to be confident that they can access start-up funds; estimate that they need 40 per cent less funding to start their business and commence with an average of 53 per cent less capital.  It was also found that 46 per cent of entrepreneurs do not seek scale loans as they expect issues with the process and 30 per cent expect to be refused – leaving only 10 per cent of female-led UK businesses successfully scaling.

Lucinda Pullinger - Global Head of HR at The Instant Group - said:

“The modern workplace has seen a major shift towards greater flexibility, with remote and agile working becoming the way of the future, especially post-pandemic. An increasing number of companies are also looking to initiatives that include men to help move the dial, such as shared parental leave. This allows more women to balance their work and family responsibilities more effectively. As workplaces start reopening in the wake of a disruptive lockdown period, the business world is faced with many exciting opportunities to change and grow for the better. There are many more ways to pave the path to greater gender parity among entrepreneurs, inspiring women in business to thrive.”

Some UK employers have opted for mandatory Covid vaccinations - ignoring the reluctance of Gen Z employees to accept the jab.

In a survey - by people management platform Employment Hero - of more than 500 employers and 500 employees in the UK in March 2021, it was found that 84 per cent of respondents wanted the vaccine.

However, 29 per cent of Gen Z respondents - those aged between 18 and 24 years - said that they are feeling unsure about accepting the jab; a further 15 per cent said that they do not want it and only 56 per cent stated that they would accept it, if offered.

Employment Hero research has revealed the new data on how employers are feeling as vaccinations increase and lockdown restrictions begin to ease.

Unexpectedly, it was found that 37 per cent of UK employers were suggesting that they would be making it mandatory to have been vaccinated - and it was also found that 24 per cent of UK workers stated that they were feeling forced by their employers to accept the jab. Remarkably different results were found, however, depending on the employee’s location - employees in Greater London were 42 per cent more likely to feel pressured by their employer than those working in Scotland, who were 74 per cent less likely to feel any pressure. 

With reference to vaccine passports, nearly 80 per cent of UK employee respondents are of the opinion that they are a good idea, but 21 per cent are against.  Employers, though, are divided in their thoughts about passports with 36 per cent stating that they would adopt them and 30 per cent disagreeing.

Many employers – 29 per cent – state that they are considering the idea of long-term remote working.  An additional 26 per cent said they would allow more flexibility to employees regarding location and hours of work but 23 per cent of employers said they would return their teams to the office as normal over the next six months.

Ben Thompson - CEO and co-founder of Employment Hero - said:

“This year has presented unique challenges for many employers and employees and as we look to the next six months, there are positives for businesses worldwide, but new challenges will arise. It is important employers listen to their employees and offer ‘Total Employment Care’ where possible. Don’t make assumptions about employee resistance to the vaccine or returning to the office. Share verified information with your employees and be open to their feedback or risk star talent jumping ship. A full return to the office might not happen in 2021, or ever, and employers should be prepared for this. One of the few silver linings of the pandemic was the realisation that workers can still thrive productively while working outside the office parameters. Businesses should not forget this. Invest in the tools that keep both productivity and communication up, and don’t overlook an incredibly talented workforce just because of their personal health choices or remote working preferences.”

A solicitor - Ms Aysha Khatun - has won her claim for unfair dismissal from personal injury firm, Winn Solicitors.

Ms Khatun refused to vary her contract - the only member of its 365 staff to do this - so that her employers, Winn Solicitors, could furlough her or reduce her wages to help it cope with the impact of Covid.  The consequence of this was dismissal from her job, in which she had been employed since April 2015.  Her dismissal was in March 2020.

Ms Khatun worked in a team handling contested Road Traffic Accidents and was well-regarded as a capable solicitor who earned good fees and achieved her targets with ease.  The head of the team was Mr Dewar, who - along with three other members of management - was called as a witness for Winn Solicitors.

In view of the continuing problems caused by the pandemic, Winn Solicitors established a steering committee to monitor developments and to propose solutions.  Staff were kept up to date, with the first update informing them that the company were reviewing capabilities for an increased number of staff to work remotely from home. Mr Dewar proposed 20 persons from his team to do this.

The Director and Chief Operating Officer (another tribunal witness) and Mr Winn called a meeting of all managers - its purpose being to discuss emergency measures to deal with the coronavirus.  The first measure was to aim to furlough 50 per cent of staff from 30 March 2020 - the reason being that there had been a reduction in new work and a further deterioration was envisaged.

The remainder of the staff - including Ms Khatun - had to agree a variation to their contracts.  With five days’ notice, they could have their hours reduced or be placed on furlough. They were informed that anyone not agreeing would have their contract terminated.

In addition, solicitors being retained were told they were being assigned a ‘furloughed buddy’s caseload’ to settle other cases where possible, but otherwise to do the minimum to keep them running.

Ms Khatun was a staff member who was not furloughed but she refused to agree to this variation and wrote:

“I feel that I am continuing to deliver the job that I am contracted to - if not more - as I now have double the work as I have to cover a ‘buddy’.  These are uncertain times and I do not feel comfortable allowing Winn’s to effectively reduce my pay. In the event that I am furloughed, or any other unexpected situation arises, I will of course consider a variation at that point.”

HR were then instructed to dismiss Ms Khatun the following day - without giving any chance to appeal.

Judge Morris remarked that the company had ‘sound, good business reasons’ for needing its staff to agree to the variation, but it was important that the staff have an opportunity to be involved in the process in a meaningful way, which Winn’s had failed to do.

He stated that Winn’s “had available to it more than the 48 hours or so that it allowed, within which time a reasonable employer would have been expected to have engaged meaningfully with the claimant in an attempt to address her concerns and reasonably explore all alternatives to dismissal.”

He added:

“I did not detect even a hint of any reasonable process being followed. Indeed, when I asked (the head of department} whether his evidence was just that there would be no process before dismissal, he answered, ‘Yes – if they didn’t agree the sanction would be applied’. His evidence was also that the business ‘simply could not spend time negotiating with 300+ individual staff’.”

Judge Morris went on to say:

“While this might go some way to establishing the ‘some other substantial reason’ for dismissal, I am not satisfied that it sufficiently establishes the reasonableness of the decision.

In the event, it appears that it would only have been necessary, not necessarily to negotiate, but to engage in a meaningful discussion with the claimant and not the other 300+ staff who accepted the variation.”

The judge discarded the suggestion that an appeal would have been pointless as by the time it was heard, management’s anger at Ms Khatun may have cooled and she might have been more open to agreeing to the variation. 

As new off-payroll working rules come into force this month, experts are urging people professionals to work out how to assess contractors ‘sooner rather than later’. 

The reform to off-payroll working rules - also known as IR35 - is likely to have a major impact on the way businesses hire contractors.

Because of the coronavirus pandemic the new off-payroll working rules were pushed back by a year, finally coming into force in the private sector at the beginning of this month.  The onus for who is caught by the tax rule has been changed, from the contractor to the organisation employing them.  To avoid making this decision, many companies stated they would no longer be using contractors.

The new rules have been put into place to ensure that contractors are paying the same level of Income Tax and National Insurance Contributions that they would if they were hired directly by the client - and medium and large-sized private sector clients are now responsible for determining the employment status of the worker or contractor.

Seb Maley - CEO of Qdos - commented on the reform, stating:

“The introduction of IR35 reform is a historic moment. It marks the culmination of years of the government chipping away at contractors, who have shown tremendous resilience and a determination to continue working this way.”

Matt Fryer - Head of Legal Services at Brookson Legal - also stated that businesses must take a ‘new approach’. He said:

“As IR35 becomes the norm, businesses need to take a completely new approach to contingent workforce management. Processes need to be embedded throughout the company to ensure continuity, including undertaking a fair and accurate employment status test, managing the process of any challenges to status determinations, contract migration and recruitment. It is also vital to maintain visibility of the temporary workforce and control of risk throughout the supply chain. With the economy gearing up for recovery from the pandemic, not having an appropriate IR35 solution in place is a real risk in terms of attracting and retaining a highly talented flexible workforce.”

Charles Cotton - Research and Policy Adviser at the CIPD - said organisations had to work out the practicalities of assessment, including whether HR would be at the helm.

He said:

“If it’s another department, then it makes sense to check what help it will expect from HR. This will help to determine your respective roles and responsibilities, as well as setting expectations.  For example, while another team might be responsible for making the assessments, it might still want HR’s help when it comes to communicating with contractors, or it might want HR to set up an appeals process in case some contractors are not happy with how their contracts have been determined.”

Simon Parsons - Director of UK Compliance Strategies at SD Worx - urged businesses to understand what the reform means to their business specifically and to plan around it.

He stated:

“Having a clear understanding of the requirements, evaluating what this means for the business, assessing current and future processes, and planning for the future will place HR teams in a strong position to adapt to the coming change. As the saying goes, it’s better late than never.”

Research suggests that female directors of top finance firms are paid £500k less than their male counterparts.

This research - after analysing workforce data from the FTSE 350 financial services companies - highlights recent signs of progress but emphasises that there is still a way to go to obviate gender inequality.

Reasons to celebrate are that as of February, according to the 30% Club, there are no FTSE 350 companies in the UK with an all-male board.  However, as this also happened previously in May 2020 only to return to all male boards the following month, it is essential that this time around they are gone for good by maintaining and continuing to increase female representation at board level.

The Hampton-Alexander Review has reported finding that the number of women on FTSE 350 boards has increased by 50 per cent in just five years. By 11 January this year, there were 1,026 women on FTSE 350 boards. This is an increase of 344 since the previous review in 2016. 

The FTSE 100 achieved 36.2 per cent of female representation, whilst the FTSE 250 achieved 33.2 per cent, equating to the FTSE 350 now having women in 34.3 per cent of board positions.

It may seem that getting rid of all-male boards and having 34.3 per cent of board positions held by women is putting gender equality within grasp - but according to analysis by Fox & Partners, from September 2020 women held just 7,552 of 50,639 senior management jobs at financial services firms. This equates to 15 per cent of such roles. 

Gender diversity was lowest at CEO level of financial services businesses - with women holding just 8 per cent of CEO positions and just 8 per cent of chair roles.  In addition, the average pay for female directors at FTSE 350 financial services firms was found to be approximately £247,100 - almost £500,000 less compared to the £722,300 paid to their male counterparts.  

Catriona Watt - Partner at Fox & Partners - stated that women were still under-represented in the boardroom and added:

“There is no quick fix, but firms need to ensure they have as part of their planning a strategy that seeks to break down barriers that have typically prevented women from progressing to the top.”

Mary O’Connor - Senior Partner at KPMG UK - remarked that women still faced ‘structural and cultural barriers’ to senior roles and figures like ‘34 per cent of board members are women’ can downplay these barriers.

She went on to say:

“Achieving the review’s 33 per cent target at boardroom level marks great progress, but it’s vital we have a strong pipeline of female talent rising through the ranks.”

Arun Batra - Partner at EY; CEO of the National Equality Standard and adviser to the Parker review - previously told People Management: 

“Being open and honest on this issue is a crucial step to diversifying the boardroom.  For years we’ve known that diversity of thought and perspective is imperative to growth, which is even more the case during the challenges of Covid-19 where there are new uncertainties and no precedent to follow. We’re in uncharted territory and the long-term recovery from the current global health crisis will require companies to leverage the strengths of all their people.

Embracing the value and importance of boardroom diversity will be critical in the long term and those that fail to do so risk being left behind.” 

He urged employers to help inspire future generations of talent by creating a culture wherein all people feel they can succeed - adding:

“Such a culture can help nurture a productive workforce, which ultimately is an important input to achieving business growth.”

Research by PennyFreedom.co.uk - one of the UK’s leading cash flow management platforms - has discovered that UK small businesses are presently seeking the payment of £61bn worth of unpaid invoices. It also revealed that two thirds of the six million small businesses have at least one late payment on their books with an average value of £15,370.

The money owed has increased by 20 per cent since this time last year and is enough to employ more than 2 million people out of work people - based on these people earning an average UK salary of £29,600.

Currently 5.1 per cent - or 1.74 million people - in the UK are out of work and experts predict a rise to 7.75 per cent unemployed when furlough schemes come to an end in mid-2021.

Up by 25 per cent on this time last year, the survey found that business owners and managers spend an average of two days a month chasing unpaid invoices and 26 per cent admitted to having three or more unpaid invoices on their books.

The survey also found that companies are being pressured to increase the length of their standard invoice terms - from an average of 33 days to 56 days - which is an increase of 69 per cent.  One in 10 businesses said that during the pandemic they had been asked for 60-day payment terms.  

During the study, business owners were asked for their comments about the upcoming lift of the lockdown - whether they felt prepared to return to normality - and 77 per cent stated that they were just as worried about the next twelve months, with 56 per cent saying that they felt unprepared or unsure of their position after lockdown.

When asked whether they thought the government had done enough for them during lockdown, 52 per cent of respondents said the support had been ‘okay’, with 34 per cent saying that the approach by government to helping businesses had not been good enough.

Colin Gunnel - PennyFreedom.co.uk co-founder - said:

“When we started PennyFreedom.co.uk our goal was to help businesses of all shapes and sizes improve their cash flow and financial stability and eradicate worry about late payments and that hasn’t changed. COVID may have changed the way we all do business, but late payments and outrageous payment terms must be a thing of the past. The damage it does to small businesses and sole traders can be immense, and we were shocked to see just how much is owed to SMEs right now. It’s no wonder so many SMEs in the UK are struggling to stay afloat, especially in industries more heavily affected by the pandemic.

We wanted to humanise these figures for people because, ultimately, they’re never just numbers on a spreadsheet. Prompt payment under agreed terms is imperative to keeping SMEs, the backbone of the UK economy, thriving and keep people in work. With unemployment set to rise again later this year the fact that so much money is owed is criminal.”

A survey was conducted by Virtual College - an online training provider - to identify the issues encountered by workers since they commenced working from home at the start of the lockdown on 23 March 2020. A year has passed since the UK went into that first lockdown and HR had no option but to take control - proving its adaptability.

Teams had to react quickly and put into place strategies to ensure that remote working did not deepen work-related stress or burnout.

Of those workers surveyed, 48.6 per cent said they felt less fit since working from home, whilst 39.35 per cent felt more tired.  Over 20 per cent of the respondents said that they regularly felt stressed in their new working environment - and over 30 per cent said that working from home is more stressful than working in the office.  In addition to stress, 20 per cent of those surveyed said that their mental health had worsened as a result of working from home.

Some respondents - 30 per cent - quoted anxiety and over 37 per cent stated that they had experienced moments of loneliness, with 35 per cent saying that they missed the interaction with others in the office.  Insecurity and depression were cited by 20 per cent of home workers and in terms of physical health, 20 per cent stated that they did not have a comfortable workplace at home.

Siobhan Martin - Global HR Business Ppartner at Aegon Asset Management - said that HR has learnt first-hand how important human interaction is and that employees will need to interact with colleagues in person once the lockdown is lifted. 

She told HR magazine:

"It’s important to acknowledge that we are social creatures and it is easy to forget the feelings of security and calmness that come from just being around other people. HR must build this into the new world of work after the pandemic." 

The survey also found that many workers were not getting outside or taking exercise regularly and when it comes to physical ailments over a third of respondents said they have experienced backache as a result of working from home.

Many respondents - 38.74 per cent - said they exercise just 1 or 2 days per week; 13.5 per cent get no exercise; over 10 per cent do not get outdoors at all while working from home and the majority - 39.64 per cent try to ensure that they get some fresh air just 1 or 2 days per week.

Hannah Brindle - Managing Director of Virtual College - said:

“We are very excited to launch our ‘Walk for Wellbeing’ campaign and we truly hope we can inspire many businesses and their teams to get active, get outdoors and get walking. Getting fresh air and exercise - particularly in the daylight, can really help with both mental and physical wellbeing, and building this into your working day with support from your employer is incredibly important. The insights from our survey were concerning and reinforce the need for all of us to take our mental and physical wellbeing seriously - particularly if we want to remain motivated and productive at work and at home and keep healthy and safe. In Virtual College, we have introduced a ‘daylight hour’ - where we encourage our teams to take an hour out during the day and get some fresh air and exercise. Our ‘Walk for Wellbeing’ campaign is taking this one step further - encouraging our people to collaborate and participate in bigger walking challenges which we hope will counteract some of the mental and physical symptoms associated with living and working remotely.” 

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.”

Pay analysts XpertHR research - based on a sample of 100 pay awards - found that in the three months to January the median basic pay rise in the private sector was just 1 per cent, compared to 2 per cent in the three months to December. This is the lowest it has been since the summer of 2020 - when it was zero.

January normally accounts for just under a quarter of pay settlements each year, but activity was slow this year as employers remain concerned about the pandemic and uncertainty over Brexit.

The research found that the same pay was awarded to 18.1 per cent of employees, with just 2.4 per cent receiving a higher amount - and all the pay awards recorded by XpertHR in the three months to the end of January 2021 were in the private sector.

David Spencer - Professor of Economics and Political Economy at Leeds University Business School - said:

“A big factor holding back pay rises is the higher level of unemployment and more generally, job insecurity. Workers have little bargaining power to push for higher wages, while firms are unable or reluctant to raise wages due to weak sales and uncertainty about the length of the lockdown. If the economy bounces back later in the year, pressure might be felt for wage rises. But if, as seems likely, unemployment grows, then wages will remain sluggish.”

He also suggested that - compared to the high levels of unemployment linked to the coronavirus restrictions - for most employers, Brexit was a relatively minor factor. 

Sheila Attwood - XpertHR Pay and Benefits Editor - said:

"The fall in the headline rate of pay awards at the beginning of 2021 reflects the continuing uncertainty in which businesses are operating. The number of organisations choosing to freeze pay rather than make any increase is discouraging, but for many this decision would not have been taken lightly on the back of the effort many employees have put in over the past year."

Sarah Arnold - Senior Economist at the New Economics Foundation - stated that it was not surprising that employers are freezing wages in response to economic uncertainty.  

She added:

“This highlights the need for a bold and ambitious recovery plan from the government to help those hardest hit and keep the economy moving."

Frances O’Grady - General Secretary of the TUC - called on the government to do more to protect pay growth. 

She warned:

“Businesses need to know that furlough support will remain available until at least the end of the year, so they can have the confidence to press ahead with pay rises. And the chancellor must use the Budget to cancel the public sector pay freeze and make sure every key worker gets a pay rise.”

Even though wellbeing was not top of the priority list for businesses, recent research has shown that 63 per cent of employers have increased support for their employees in at least one of the areas of mental, financial, physical and social wellbeing.

At one time, health insurance and an employee assistance programme would have been all that was provided for employee wellbeing, but now it is accepted that much more is required to ensure that a negative effect on business is not impacted.

According to a recent report by HRZone, the average worker was absent for 14.6 per cent of their working hours - which represented a loss of 38 days per employee per year.

However, research has shown that 50 per cent of businesses have increased the communications around support available to staff; 44 per cent increased the time made available to directly help staff and 38 per cent extended support to reflect changes requested by employees.  A further 34 per cent increased engagement and utilisation of support that was already available, with 32 per cent increasing time to investigate resources to help staff. 

The research also showed that 32 per cent of employers extended the support being offered to include families of the employees, whilst 25 per cent provided new employee benefits to give extra support - and 24 per cent increased their investment directly to fund support.

HRZone suggest that the 25 per cent of employers who are providing new employee benefits and the 24 per cent who are funding support directly, should also consider whether their existing benefits are being under-utilised. Any shortfall in the health and wellbeing benefits should be regularly enhanced and updated. 

The Covid-19 pandemic has identified the importance of mental health, plus financial, physical and social well-being - in that order of importance - with 48 per cent of employers feeling more responsibility for the mental health of staff than prior to the pandemic.  This has resulted in 50 per cent of employers increasing the support that they offer staff expressly for mental health. 

The new Pensions Schemes Act - which received Royal Assent on 11th February 2021 - has given the Pensions Regulator powers to issue civil penalties of up to £1m.

Three new criminal offences for bosses who run pension schemes into the ground - or plunder pots for their own financial gain - are also part of the powers and employers could receive a seven-year prison sentence for plundering pension funds. 

In addition, the Bill - which is now an Act of Parliament - will tighten the rules on DB pension transfers, put in place statutory amendments and introduce new climate change risk management and reporting requirements.

In April 2016, British Home Stores went into administration with a pension’s deficit of more than £500,000 and in January 2018, Carillion entered compulsory liquidation with thirteen DB schemes in the UK with a deficit of £800 to £900 million. This triggered the parliamentary review into the way pension funds are regulated.

Guy Opperman - Minister for Pensions - said:

“This is an historic day for UK pensions. This act makes our pensions safer, better and greener, as we look to build back better from the pandemic.”

Experts, however, have raised fears that the new broadly drafted powers could have a bearing on normal business activity.

Joe Dabrowski - Deputy Director for Policy at the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association - said:

“At the very minimum, for employers it will mean thinking about any potential impact any actions might have on funds with more scrutiny. This means an additional layer of risk management and will lead to more documenting, processing and assessments.”

The new Pension Schemes Act will also allow employers to offer collective defined contribution schemes to members.  Their money will be pooled and invested collectively.

Joe Dabrowski commented:

“It gives employers the option if they’re thinking about alterations to funding arrangements, or if they wanted a step up from defined contribution, it gives them a new avenue to explore.”

Regarding the obligations introduced in the act for employers to look at their approach to climate change, Joe Dabrowski stated:

“This will lead to schemes having to articulate their approach much more to climate change, what they’re doing, how that’s making a difference.”

David Saunders - Partner at Sackers - stated that there are steps employers should now take in response to the act and added:

“It’s important employers have an internal governance process in place, so people aren’t inadvertently doing things to trigger these regulations without knowing it and are making sure the right people know about this. This includes keeping a paper trail to show discussions had and advice taken on pensions and to record measures taken to protect pension funds.”

Carolyn Saunders - Head of Pensions and long-term savings at Pinsent Masons  stated that the act provides a framework for employers and most of the detail will be set out in future regulations - adding:

“The first draft code of practice, published for consultation last year, was concerning for employers to the extent that the direction of travel seemed to be one that would be likely to lead to an increase in employer contributions.”

Draft guidance for consultation which will explain how it will exercise its new powers is expected to be drawn up by the Pensions Regulator.

Experts have warned that pre-lockdown working arrangements did not work. They suggest that businesses should be encouraged to invest in family-friendly policies.

Working Families - UK’s work-life balance charity - conducted a survey on working parents and carers to discover their experiences of flexible working before and during lockdown - and their goals for flexible working after the lockdown restrictions are lifted.

Only 65 per cent of parents and carers surveyed had the opportunity to work flexibly before the onset of the pandemic, but 84 per cent now have that facility - with 63 per cent working from home and 52 per cent enjoying flexible working hours.

Despite 61 per cent of the parents and carers surveyed saying that family life was more stressful or much more stressful during lockdown, 65 per cent said they would like their future work arrangements to be extremely or very flexible and 32 per cent said they would like them to be moderately or slightly flexible.

Only 1 per cent of parents and carers said they did not want any flexibility in future - but 13 per cent said they did not think they would have the choice of working flexibly despite wanting to. Half of respondents said their employers were unsympathetic and did not offer practical help with their childcare needs.

Of women currently working flexibly, 42 per cent said they needed to work this way to meet childcare commitments - in comparison to 28 per cent of men. 

Experts are asking employers to continue offering flexible working after the pandemic - but to also be aware of the differences of flexible and remote working, ensuring all parents and carers have access to secure jobs with guaranteed, predictable hours and access to all parental employment rights.

Chris Parke - Chief Executive of Talking Talent - advises employers to discuss with parents how they can support them to have a healthy work-life balance. He states that businesses must understand that remote working is not the same as flexible working and says:

“Being at home all day does not offer working parents any more flexibility when it comes to balancing jobs and home – in fact, it blurs the lines. Even though remote working does have its benefits, it has also triggered another conflict. Without the clear distinction of being at work and being at home, working parents have faced juggling the responsibilities of both, whilst being in the same environment. Any companies not offering the right support and company culture could find their high-talent individuals eschew them in favour of more forward-thinking firms.”

Mandy Garner - Managing Editor of WM People - stated that flexibility has been crucial throughout the pandemic and added:

“Flexible working has, for many years, been the number-one demand of working parents, and many women have left their jobs or found it difficult to get back into the workforce because of the lack of it.  It’s clear, however, that the demand for flexible working from parents – and many others – is there. It would be a pity if we emerged from Covid and returned to pre-lockdown ways of working, when they clearly don't work for a great many people."

Jane van Zyl - Chief Executive of Working Families - said:

“It’s becoming abundantly clear that there’s no going back to business as usual in a post-Covid working world. Employers have realised that many more jobs can be done flexibly than had ever been considered before and now is the time for these employers to invest in creating long-term strategies to support robust flexible and family-friendly policies and practices. An increase in high-quality, flexible jobs will not only help employers increase their productivity, talent attraction, and diversity - but it will also help the long-term economic recovery of the UK by opening the labour market to those who were previously shut out by inflexibility.”

Recently, the CIPD launched its campaign calling for the request for flexible working to become a right from day-one as their research showed that 46 per cent of employees do not have access to flexible working arrangements.

Peter Cheese - Chief Executive of the CIPD - said:

“We need a new understanding about what flexible working is and we need employers to embrace flexible working arrangements beyond home working, to give opportunity and choice to all. Employees may not always be able to change where they work, but they should have more choice and a say in when and how they work.”

New research by e-days - a global absence management software - highlights the various professions who are struggling with stress at work.

The research found that there was a 70 per cent rise in the number of stress-related absences among HR professionals in 2020 compared to the previous year, resulting in experts encouraging them to look after their own wellbeing whilst they are working.

The data, which was collected from 1,500 employers and analysed by e-days, showed that - and only being surpassed by workers in the healthcare sector and employees within Government and International Affairs - HR professionals took 0.39 days off on average per employee.

Rachel Suff - Employment Relations Adviser at the CIPD - said HR professionals had been at the centre of their organisations’ response to the pandemic.

She commented:

“Many months on, as the crisis continues, people professionals need to dig deep to help shore up organisational resilience and continue to support employee wellbeing. Given these high demands, people professionals must look after their personal wellbeing and resilience so that they can recognise any signs that day-to-day pressures – whether at home or at work, or both – are tipping into unmanageable stress.”

Overall, during 2020 stress-related absences around the UK saw a 64 per cent increase.  

The analysis also found that the amount of leave and holiday cancelled in 2020 almost doubled compared to 2019.  It also raised concerns about presenteeism and estimated that two-thirds of those working from home worked while sick at some time during the last year.

The Office for National Statistics also analysed their figures - which showed that whilst the number of fit notes issued by GPs dropped last year - the proportion issued for mental health reasons increased.

Dr Kate Bunyan - Chief Medical Officer, Doctor Care Anywhere - stated:

“Businesses need to ask themselves what they can do to support their employees through stress or sickness and ensure employees know that it is no longer a badge of honour to work whilst sick.

There should be a clear procedure in place to support employees and fast track them to the necessary support services before the situation worsens. Employees who choose to work when unwell are negatively impacting their own health, and in turn their colleagues and the business will suffer too. Without direction staff will be unsure as to how best proceed when sick and continue working. Especially during current circumstances business leaders need to be wise to this, and properly support their workforce.”

Steve Arnold - CEO of e-days - said:

“With HR leaders also struggling, we must recognise there is a perfect storm going on. What we do have within our control is looking after people when they do need to book absence but are working remotely. We have to build a company culture that shouts ‘absence matters’ and do away with the fear of appearing lazy or unable to cope. The truth is during this pandemic the majority are probably working more than ever, and HRs themselves need to call in support services to help.” 

A study of 5,842 UK workers by Totaljobs - conducted between 10 and 14 December 2020 - showed that 89 per cent are looking to change jobs in 2021, with 77 per cent having already started looking and a further 11 per cent saying they will start looking this month. Of these, 52 per cent are looking to relocate within the UK.  However, 24 per cent are also looking within the EU and 14 per cent are looking outside the EU altogether.

Of those polled, 66 per cent said they were worried about their career security and 26 per cent believed it was likely they would become unemployed this year.  As a result, 18 per cent are actively looking for work in a more secure industry, with 45 per cent saying that they did not think they would get a new role in the sector in which they are currently employed. Most people - 57 per cent - think it will take them up to three months to find a new job.

The survey also showed that 30 per cent of workers were able to obtain a new skill/qualification - but only 1 in 10 received training from their employer in 2020.

The workers are citing concerns over job security and career progression as reasons for changing their employment, but in addition, experts are warning that engagement is essential to staff feeling valued.

Daniella McGuigan - Partner at Ogletree Deakins International - commented that it was more crucial than ever for employers to engage with workers, at the same time acknowledging that remote working made this difficult:

She said:

“It’s very difficult for businesses to replicate training and development plans on a remote basis too – this is particularly so for junior employees or those who were new to the workplace when the pandemic began.  Career development is a real and genuine concern going forward and is likely to be felt far beyond the lifting of restrictions.  Perhaps now, more than ever, employee engagement is essential to navigate a way through the current situation and ensure that, wherever possible, people come out the other side of this feeling valued and appreciated.”

Claire McCartney - Senior Resourcing and Inclusion Adviser at the CIPD stated:

“Organisations must have a long-term and strategic approach and ensure the needs of the business and external landscape are considered. This will also help to ensure training is not seen as an easy target for cost-cutting measures.”

She added:

“HR teams have an important role to play in highlighting the importance of training in helping people to adapt, learn and improve during times of economic uncertainty."

Jon Wilson - CEO of Totaljobs - stated:

“2020 was a tough year for the jobs market, and while we’ve seen increased activity on Totaljobs from businesses actively recruiting, for those looking for work, the challenge of having to stand out from the crowd remains. That’s why it’s such a positive sign that we’re seeing so many people picking up extra skills and qualifications during lockdown. This shows a willingness to keep their progression on track or learn new, transferable skills required to be employable in a different industry. Over the past year, we’ve seen workers setting new standards for their employment conditions. The rise of remote working has seen candidates move around the country or even relocate outside the UK to find work. The coming months will reveal how much more of an impact the pandemic and Brexit will have on people’s attitudes towards their jobs, their location and their employment terms. While the full impact of the pandemic will remain unclear for the time being, what we do know is that workers have experienced a huge strain on their working lives during 2020. It is perhaps no surprise that they will be seeking a fresh start and new opportunities in the months to come.”

A new survey conducted by Aetna International has revealed that 63 per cent of HR directors believe employers now have more responsibility for their employees’ mental and physical health beyond the workplace.  The research shows that these two-thirds of HR directors now feel more responsibility - particularly for mental health - as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The survey was undertaken by over 4,000 office workers - many of whom were working remotely - and 1,000 HR directors from the UK, US, Singapore and the UAE, with the results implying that business organisations have a greater understanding of employee health concerns than prior to the pandemic.  Fifty-four per cent of HR directors state that their company has improved the provision of mental health support - and has provided benefits such as flexible working.

Despite this, there is a clear difference between the views of HR and employees towards these provisions, as whilst 40 per cent of HR directors saw the quality and health benefits offered as good, this was not endorsed by the employees - with only 23 per cent of employees who work from home and 32 per cent of employees still working in an office, in agreement.

However, this was an improvement compared to pre-Covid 19, when only 25 per cent of employees felt they were being offered good support for mental health conditions.  Over half of UK workers felt that their employer should be spending more on health and benefits whilst only 36 per cent of HR directors felt the same.

Twenty-one per cent of employees stated that the health support they receive has not advanced since the pandemic, showing that employers may not be mindful of the needs of the employees. Prior to the pandemic, 93 per cent of employees stated that good physical health support was a reason for remaining at the company - but now 41 per cent cited good annual leave entitlement as a greater attraction, followed by 35 per cent wanting the ability to work from home.

Damian Lenihan - Executive Director for Europe at Aetna International - stated:

“It’s encouraging to see that employers have recognised the increasing importance of robust health and well-being support, particularly when it comes to benefits and interventions designed to support mental health and well-being. There’s no doubt the pandemic has taken a toll on people’s mental and emotional resilience; this year, businesses everywhere need to consider their role in addressing this burden.”

He continued:

“Whilst it’s positive to see that the perceptions of employers are now more aligned with the experiences of their employees, our research suggests there is still more to do to ensure health benefits and HR strategies are not only fit for purpose today, but also for the future. The views of employers and their employees remain polarised when it comes to the steps businesses need to take to strengthen workplace well-being provisions.  Listening to employees will be absolutely crucial for businesses over the next few months. For a lot of people, health and lifestyle pressures have intensified dramatically as a result of the pandemic, something that businesses cannot afford to ignore. If they haven’t already, businesses must act and respond to these challenges or risk alienating a workforce that is already under strain.”

During the coronavirus pandemic, the TUC has warned that the controversial practice of ‘fire and re-hire’ has become widespread. 

An online survey of 2,231 workers in England and Wales was conducted during November 2020 on respondents who were either in work, on furlough, or recently made redundant. 

It was found that 9 per cent of workers have been told to re-apply for their jobs on worse terms and conditions or face the sack and 18 per cent of those aged 18-24 years say that their working terms - such as pay or hours - have been downgraded since the first lockdown in March.  

Twice the proportion of ethnic minority workers were subjected to ‘fire and hire’ tactics,15 per cent compared to 8 per cent of their white counterparts. In addition, 12 per cent of working-class employees - as against 7 per cent of higher socio-economic groups - were told to re-apply for their jobs under worse terms and conditions.  

The TUC says ‘fire and re-hire’ tactics are being used across a range of businesses.  Of the workers polled, a total of 24 per cent had experienced a downgrading of their terms during the pandemic - including through reduced pay or changes to their hours.

The poll also revealed that 34 per cent of young workers - aged 18-24 years - say their terms at work have deteriorated since the start of the first lockdown and 30 per cent of low-paid workers - those earning up to £15,000 - report the same.  Job security was cited as a worry by 38 per cent of workers.

Frances O’Grady - General Secretary of the TUC - said:

“Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect at work. Forcing people to re-apply for their jobs on worse terms and conditions is plain wrong.   Fire and re-hire tactics have no place in modern Britain and must be outlawed.”  

Ben Willmott - Head of Public Policy at the CIPD - stated:

“Employers must consider all alternatives and have done everything possible to try and reach voluntary agreement and consider whether the proposed changes are completely vital.”

He states that dismissing a worker and then rehiring – forcing them to accept a change to the employment contract, should be an absolute last resort.

Francis O’Grady is calling on the government to fast track a much-delayed employment bill and to “…….abandon any attempt to water down hard-won workers’ rights from the EU.”  

Paul Holcroft - Managing Director of Croner - cautioned that “…. depending on how employers are putting their ‘fire and rehire’ processes in place, employees may have an argument that they have been unfairly dismissed, so the details would need to be looked at carefully”.

According to research by software company Sage People recent events have impacted the role of HR, increasing their value in the eyes of the business.

Sage interviewed 1500 global HR leaders, business executives and employees, and found that 87 per cent of C-suite executives say the pandemic has accelerated changes in HR - with 72 per cent of HR leaders believing other peoples’ understanding of their function has increased.  Fifty-nine per cent said that they felt they played a more influential role in the company.

Due to the pressure on companies by the pandemic, business leaders have had to adapt quickly, and HR leaders have been at the forefront of that adaptation and transformation.

However, more than half - 57 per cent - of C-suite executives still saw HR as a largely administrative function, despite the same proportion viewing them as equal leadership partners in the organisation.

Regarding HR workload, 76 per cent of senior executives felt the amount of work placed on HR departments was acceptable, even though 60 per cent of HR professionals have experienced an increase in administrative and strategic tasks.

Sage found that six in ten employees thought that HR’s role had become more strategic and people focused, with 25 per cent saying this change had been substantial - and 54 per cent of employees also saying they now have improved knowledge and understanding of HR’s role and value.

The research revealed that the pandemic has heightened the focus on technology and digital transformation - but there is a lack of confidence amongst HR leaders about skills.  Thirty-six per cent of HR leaders feel there is a lack of investment to make this a reality and only 53 per cent believe they have the right skills and tools for what lies ahead.

Paul Burrin - Vice President of Product, Sage People - said:

“HR has taken on more responsibilities and helped guide the business through ongoing disruption and accelerated digital transformation. However, this has often created additional workloads which automation can help manage, increasing HR productivity, while enabling organisations to become more agile and resilient.

2020 marked a year where HR’s leaders became champions of change and both executives and employees alike have realised the greater role that HR has taken on. HR and People leaders can capitalise on this and use this opportunity to cast aside older, more cumbersome ways of working to focus instead on quicker, iterative cycles of work. In this way—with the help of automation, cloud technology, and self-service—HR can focus on maintaining influence and building a more resilient workforce that is more prepared for future challenges ahead.”

According to research carried out by leading law firm GQ Littler, the number of claims received by employment tribunals increased by 27 per cent over the last year – more than 6,000 greater than in the previous 12 months.  This indicates a considerably faster increase than that which occurred during 2017-18 and 2018-19.

This spike in claims has been put down to the broad range of employment law risks caused by the pandemic – and the bad effect that has had on the economy.

Philip Cameron - a Partner at GQ Littler - said:

“It is unrealistic to expect that you can go through such a huge change in working practices and a severe economic downturn without creating a sharp rise in disputes between employees and employers. The pandemic has created HR challenges for employers that they have never faced before. While employers have often met this huge logistical challenge well, it is not without a cost.”

Jonna Mundy - CEO of You HR - agrees.  She states that the amount of tribunal claims was ‘an inevitable aftermath from the first catastrophic Covid hit last year’, with the full impact yet to be felt. 

She commented, “We are yet to see the fallout of further redundancies likely to come from spring onwards of this year.”  She added that “poor practice in not managing health, wellbeing and other employee concerns would likely amount to further claims”.

When employment law experts were asked for advice on how firms can keep themselves out of the virtual courtroom, Jo Caine - Managing Director of Cathedral Appointments - suggested that employers should engage with HR and legal specialists.

She said:

“In this day and age, word spreads fast. If your company treats employees unfairly or in an inappropriate manner, especially during a time of crisis such as this, there will be consequences. Employees will talk, bad reviews will be made on platforms such as Glassdoor, and your business will suffer in the long term.”

In addition to the pressure felt by employers, the courts are suffering from a growing backlog of cases. Waiting time for single claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination is averaging out at 38 weeks.  GQ Littler states that this is something that is exacerbating problems for employers and employees who then face periods of uncertainty.

Philip Cameron stated:

“For both employers and employees these long waits before tribunals can be demoralising. For management they are a huge distraction and for employees the lengthy wait period can be very stressful and they will have no source of income.”

Issues about the Government’s furlough scheme; the handling of the redundancy process; health and safety concerns and the increase in flexible working are all common traps that employers fall into which could lead to employment tribunals.

The selection of employees to be furloughed may come under scrutiny in 2021 and choosing which employees to furlough should be as fair and objective as possible.

With quick and large-scale redundancies having to be made, employers need to follow a fair selection process – a collective consultation process for 20 or more employees from a single location over a period of 90 days or less. Failure to do this can result in an award of up to 90 days’ pay for each affected employee.

In addition to ensuring that the workplace is safe to work in - to reduce the spread of infection, employers also need to ensure that risks to pregnant employees are assessed regularly. Reasonable adjustments should also be made for disabled workers and employees should be protected against detriment or dismissal where they reasonably believe themselves to be in serious and imminent danger such as - during the COVID-19 pandemic - contracting the potentially deadly virus. 

In 2021, employment tribunals could face difficult questions regarding whether an employee’s long COVID symptoms meet the definition of a disability under the Equality Act.

Meetings should continue online as employment tribunals are still functioning throughout the latest restrictions and Kathleen Heycock - Partner at Farrer & Co – says:

“In our experience, even difficult and complex investigations can take place remotely………there is unlikely to be much sympathy for employers – or employees – who now try to use this third lockdown as a reason to delay or frustrate HR processes.”

She added:

“Perfection is a tough goal, even in normal circumstances. No matter how well any process is run, it is not possible to eliminate all claims for disgruntled or distressed employees. And there are far more of those during these difficult times. It is inevitable that claims increase when employees can’t simply move on to a new job and a decent salary. Sadly, there are just more people who feel litigation is worth it, because they don’t have another option.”

An assistant solicitor - Ms Susan Orton - who missed a hearing at an Employment Tribunal, has not been struck off from practising law.

Ms Orton qualified in March 2016.   In August 2018 - as a solicitor employed by BPE Solicitors, a Cheltenham firm - she received a telephone call from an Employment Tribunal asking why there had not been an attendance at the Tribunal for one of her cases. 

As a result of this call, Ms Orton looked for- and found - a notification of hearing document, two copies of which she put into waste bins in the office. She denied having seen them to her employers.

However, after being seen to do this by a secretary who reported the matter, the copy notifications were later found in the bins by her supervisor and the head of HR.

Ms Orton was dismissed the following day.

At the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, she was cleared of dishonesty over this act - but it was found that she committed a dishonest act in misleading the Employment Tribunal when she denied having seen notification of the hearing.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal stated that they could not be sure that Ms Orton - who had subsequently been diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum - was aware of what she was doing at the time.

The QC representing Ms Orton stated that she had a fear of making mistakes and put forward that this was an ‘aberration’ in her otherwise unblemished career.

He stated:

“The nature of this dishonesty was a rabbit in the headlights by a lady suffering a serious illness that she had no idea she was suffering from. She is a very positive member of society and a lady of high intelligence with a great deal to offer. She can have some kind of future in the law and in the right environment does not present a risk.”

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal made the unusual decision not to strike off Ms Orton and found that exceptional circumstances had added to her conduct. She was suspended for six months, with the Tribunal stating that she would have received a two and a half years suspension apart from the fact that her time out of work since the incident has accounted for two years.

When she returns to work, she will be subject to several conditions on her practising certificate and will be required to undergo regular health checks.

Ms Orton was also ordered to pay £20,000 costs.

The Junior Lawyers Division (JLD) has welcomed the decision not to strike Ms Orton after the Tribunal found that her mental ill-health represented exceptional circumstances which warranted a suspension instead.

The JLD group commented:

“The JLD hopes the SDT (Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal) continues to be as conscious of the significant impact of such issues in future determinations, and that the SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority) takes note of the Orton outcome when considering whether to prosecute other junior lawyers in similar circumstances in the future.”

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has stressed that HR must take steps to make the workforce more inclusive, with different generations working side-by-side.

A new report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, states that governments and employers should collaborate to promote multi-generational labour forces to adapt to ongoing changes - accelerated by the coronavirus pandemic - in the world of work.    

The new report stated that by 2050 more than four in every ten people in the world’s advanced economies are likely to be aged older than 50 years of age. In addition, there will be one person aged 65 and over for every two persons aged 20-64 - compared to one for every three today.

According to the research undertaken in 37 countries, the report found that older workers can augment the productivity in their company through age and skill complementarities between younger and older workers - and their own experience.

There is a problem, however, as the research suggests that HR and leaders tend to classify workers by their age and then create policies based on this. The OECD suggests this may achieve the opposite from that which is required, as workers of all ages are more alike in their attitudes to work - and they are inclined to value similar things.

The OECD suggests that recruitment and retention strategies should be focussed upon - together with improving job quality and maximising training and development - in order to promote an age-inclusive workforce, with job advertisements being age-proofed in order to attract talent from all age groups.

Additionally, phased retirement programmes could be an effective method to retain older workers, allowing them to work for their employers in a different capacity rather than immediately transitioning to full-time retirement.

Currently, only 41 per cent of adults across the OECD take part in job-related training, with younger; more highly qualified employees on full-time contracts more likely to receive training than older, lower skilled and part-time workers.

Stefano Scarpetta - Director of Employment, Labour and Social Affairs at the OECD - said:

“Many employers are struggling to establish effective policies that continue to support workers’ living, learning and earning at older ages. Part of this inaction is fuelled by widespread misconceptions about the strengths and capabilities that different generations bring to the workplace.

Workplace policies and practises cannot be implemented in isolation for specific groups at specific times in their careers – it is not about targeting one age group at the perceived expense of another. Employers will only succeed if they develop initiatives in the context of nurturing an age-diverse workplace and taking a life-cycle perspective with supportive public policies and good social dialogue. Doing so will benefit all of us as well as future generations in terms of greater prosperity and well-being.”

New research carried out by the Achievers Workforce Institute on 2,094 employed respondents, has found that just 48 per cent of managers have received training on coaching, professional development and recognition.

In addition, the report draws attention to the link between engaged employees and effective managers - underlining the necessary training HR must provide to managers.

According to the data, whilst 48 per cent have said to have been trained in key areas - such as one-to-one meetings; coaching; employee recognition or professional development, only 27 per cent were trained on setting performance goals.  Approximately, a third of managers were trained in each of the areas - leaving most managers to pick up best practices on their own.

Achievers Chief Workforce Scientist - Dr. Natalie Baumgartner - said:

“With less than half of employers training managers to coach and lead their teams, according to the survey, it represents a risk area for organisations. Our data shows that manager effectiveness directly impacts employee engagement, with recognition and professional development playing especially big roles in driving effectiveness. Organisations need to offer widespread training to all managers to empower them to better lead their teams. If an organisation can empower all their managers to be great leaders, they will see direct business impact at every level.”

To assist managers, Achievers have advised HR teams to train managers in employee recognition; professional development; strength-based management and empathetic leadership. They should create a culture of recognition throughout the business – with managers recognising employees’ strengths.  Professional development plans for individuals at all levels are recommended to be put in place.

Dr. Natalie Baumgartner added:

“Organisational leaders simply cannot expect managers to effectively support and engage their people without providing them with the tools, resources, and training to do so. Good managers become so through insight, development and support — essentially, empowerment. Conversely, bad managers are often actually just under-supported, under-developed, and under-engaged, themselves. Thus, it’s imperative that every organisation empowers their front-line people leaders, their managers, with regular, consistent, cross-functional training for all managers.”

The UK has already started to roll out COVID-19 vaccinations using the BioNTech-Pfizer vaccine. As a result of the recent approval of the Oxford University/Astra Zeneca vaccine by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, many more vaccinations will be offered to UK citizens, including workers in all organisations.

With some airlines and countries already suggesting that vaccinations may be a pre-requisite to travel and entry, it is critical for businesses to commence planning now for what it will mean to them.

As with the initial crisis response, when faced with decisions around vaccinations businesses will need to simultaneously protect their employees whilst abiding by government regulations - and playing their part in the protection of national healthcare infrastructure.

Planning for the growing implementation of the vaccine relies on trust and businesses who have spent time building trust with their workers could see it destroyed if the recovery period is not treated corrected.

Employees will want to understand what their options are and will look to their leadership for answers and guidance through the myriad of new and evolving regulations. This applies to both employees working on the premises and those working remotely.

HR executives need to ensure that protectionary measures are high in their physical return to work and travel plans, considering challenges such as how a vaccination, or a lack of a vaccination, will impact on return to physical work planning; what employee’s long-term preferences are and – for workers who choose not to be vaccinated – what will this mean for them.

For those who are located in different countries or expected to travel as part of their role, it will be essential to ensure they are protected, as rules across different jurisdictions can change quickly.

Strategic planning by HR executives should extend cross-border and consider multi-state regulatory frameworks – it is a truly global issue.

Sarah Calderwood - Human Resources and Employment lawyer at Slater Heelis - has discussed what the rules are when it comes to employers asking staff to get the vaccination. She states:

“Under current health and safety legislation, employers have a duty to protect the health of employees, anyone on their premises and anyone else effected by the business. Existing vaccination guidelines state that if a risk assessment finds a risk of exposure to biological agents and effective vaccines exist, employers should offer to provide immunisations to those who are not already immunised, however, employees are at liberty to refuse immunisation.”

When asked if an employer can add an immunisation clause to a job contract - she replied:

“If employers want to make the Covid vaccine a contractual requirement, changes in the terms of the contract would need to be agreed by staff. Employers enforcing this change without employees’ express and implied agreement would be in breach of contract and employees would be entitled to resign and claim constructive unfair dismissal. Employers could find it difficult to show this change in terms as reasonable and may struggle to introduce this type of agreement for existing employees. If employers were to introduce an immunisation clause into new starters’ contracts, it would have to be in a reasonable manner which would include consultations with any employees worried about the vaccine for any reason.”

There has been an increase in the amount of alcohol consumed at home since the start of the pandemic, as Health and Safety software company - Protecting.co.uk - found that that 90 per cent of workers admit to drinking alcohol whilst working, causing all sorts of problems such as worker health, the quality of work and deeper ethical issues.

Company spokesman - Mark Hall - said:

“The freedoms of working from home have allowed workers to behave in ways they wouldn’t dream of in the office. Just because you are in your own home alcohol and substance abuse policies still apply.”

Nearly 30 per cent of people said that they would go to the pub for after work drinks, but as huge numbers of the UK workforce have been on furlough or working from home this year, the opportunity to socialise and unwind in the pub with colleagues at the end of the week has all but disappeared.

However, this does not mean people have stopped drinking – 26 per cent of people in the UK said that they had increased their consumption of alcohol during the first lockdown when pubs were closed.  

Protecting.co.uk worries that the lack of structure in home working has left many clouding the boundaries between home and work life, with some not realising that they are breaking the rules.

A phone poll of 1300 people who are all working at home due to COVID-19 and carried out by Protecting.co.uk finds that nine out of ten people have admitted to drinking whilst working in their own homes this year.

Mark Hall stated:

“It ranges from just a glass for two with lunch, to getting through a whole bottle of wine a day, but the health implications are clear.”

Of the people polled, 87 per cent stated that they had drunk on more than one occasion whilst working from home; 83 per cent stated that they drank more than twice a week whilst working from home and 93 per cent admitted to consuming more alcohol during the pandemic, than previously.

There was also a 20 per cent increase in those seeking help from addiction services in April 2020.   

Mark Hall commented:

“It’s alarming to employers to hear that staff feel like they can get away with all kinds of behaviour while they are out of office. It’s going to be a hard habit to break once this is all over.”

Although most workplaces have a robust alcohol and substance abuse policy to keep staff in check when they are at work, it’s clear that the rules are not being followed at home and unfortunately for employers, it’s difficult to police what staff do at home during working hours.

Mark Hall has some advice to help employers. He suggests that communication is kept open and regular staff checks are made to enquire how they are getting on; they should be informed as what hours they are expected to work and let know that help is available if required. A more extreme option is to send home testing kits and request that they test themselves to make sure they can work.

He stated:

“The best approach is to talk to your employers and help them to understand why it is important to you and your business for these rules to be followed, but to also support those who may be struggling.  We all have our guilty pleasures and vices, but this should not impact our ability to work professionally, and if you find yourself unable to cope there are plenty of resources available.”

LinkedIn has surveyed more than 250 UK business leaders, finding that 31 per cent stated that their focus in the next six months would be on giving their employees the chance to move into different roles internally.

Reskilling and upskilling employees was cited by 32 per cent as a top priority for 2021. 

The research found that employers are prioritising talent within their existing workforce rather than hiring out of the company - because of the uncertainty caused by the coronavirus crisis.

Janine Chamberlin - Senior Director at LinkedIn - said the continued uncertainty around Covid-19 has meant many companies are looking to ‘tap existing employees for new opportunities within their organisations’ instead of hiring external candidates.

She added:

“Encouraging internal mobility not only boosts retention and improves employee engagement, but it can also help companies evolve their businesses from within and bridge any existing skills gaps. To ensure employees are set up for success and have the skills to support career transitions, reskilling and upskilling initiatives are vital and HR professionals will play a pivotal role in facilitating this.”

In addition, the research found that 34 per cent of leaders wanted to create a culture of learning to help employees develop the skills they needed for the future. 

Another 31 per cent said they were focused on closing the skills gaps within their organisations.  

Lizzie Crowley - Senior Skills Policy Adviser at the CIPD - warned against businesses being tempted to cut learning and development budgets following the pandemic. She stated that on previous recessions, learning and development budgets were ‘vulnerable’ as businesses attempted to cut costs - but she said doing so now could risk potential growth in the future, adding:

“It’s like shooting yourself in the foot a bit if you don’t invest in your staff during challenging times. Thinking creatively about how you redeploy existing talent within your workforce is what will give you that kind of competitive edge in what is a challenging market.”

Noelle Murphy - Senior HR Practice Editor at XpertHR - stated:

“Hiring internally ensures that one of the key elements of retention is in place – a good fit with the organisation’s values and culture. Investing in learning and development can be a far more effective use of funds than spending money on external recruitment and selection processes, and HR can make a powerful business case for investing in identifying talent internally, not only for roles available today but also future requirements of the organisation.”

She added that developing internal talent also built positive relationships with employees, demonstrating confidence in the skills and competence of the workforce. 

As a result of the pandemic accelerating changes to the world of work, a report from the Confederation of British Industry found nine in 10 UK employees would have to reskill by 2030. 

It is anticipated that in the next decade, 26 million workers would require upskilling in order to keep up to date with technological and business developments.  Another 5 million workers would go through a fundamental job change and require retraining.

Suzanne Hurndall - Relationship Director at HR Inspire Ltd - stated:

“Creating dedicated initiatives for key groups within the company to achieve this goal is vital – it shouldn’t be a ‘one size fits all’ approach and implementing real L&D can be truly transformational.” 

She added:

“This future of work is essential to foster a trust culture as we navigate our current landscape and create teams comfortable with grappling together with the unknown.”

At an employment tribunal heard at Exeter, a female executive - Ms Susan Coulson, aged 59 years - was awarded £64,000 after she was dismissed by a housing company. 

Ms Coulson made a claim for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination against RentPlus UK Ltd - a Plymouth based housing firm - after she was fired from her £100,000 a year job.  She stated that she was given the option of taking a job 250 miles away or taking a £35,000 pay cut, leaving her in a ‘perilous’ position because of her age.

Ms Coulson declined both offers and was dismissed in August 2018, after being employed by the company since 2015.  Previously, she had worked in social housing at a high level for 20 years.

When Ms Coulson joined RentPlus, Richard Connolly was the CEO and in April 2017, Steven Collins - who was a witness at the tribunal - was appointed as a consultant to secure strategic new business. Towards the end of 2017 Richard Connolly decided that for personal reasons he could no longer continue in his role as CEO and without advertising the vacancy, the board appointed Steven Collins to his position.  

Ms Coulson argued that she had been gradually ‘frozen out’ under the disguise of 'cost cutting' after the new chief executive had been appointed. The board consisted of all male members. She pointed out that she was well equipped to apply for the role of CEO - she is now CEO of a larger organisation in this field - but was denied the opportunity to do so, as the appointment was made by the board without anyone outside it knowing it was under consideration. The board say that the restructure was genuine, that her dismissal had not been to do with gender and that there was no post available at the same level.

In the judgment, the judges said that the company had argued against sex discrimination, claiming: ‘that all the board are male is simply a reflection of the fact that few women have the money and connection to attain such a position. That some may play golf or have yachts is not an indicator of sex discrimination’. They added that ‘while the tribunal is unanimous as to the findings of fact, and the assessment of them in relation to unfair dismissal, this was no more than a very bad case of unfair dismissal.  Rentplus’ case is one that would have applied to any person in Ms Coulson’s position such that there is no connection with gender.’

Employment Judge Paul Housego said:

“She is a resilient individual not afraid of, and relishing, hard work, but the ­tribunal fully accept her evidence that this was highly demoralising and depressing.

She was left at an age where she feared that she might never be able to get a similar role, and (rightfully in the tribunal’s view) considered that she was in an even more perilous ­situation than a comparable man because ageism is worse for women than men, and she would have the risk of double prejudice as a woman.

It is not necessary for her to prove that her fears are a correct assessment - the tribunal is fully satisfied that they were real, and genuine fears caused by the company’s actions, which had a great effect on Ms Coulson.”

The employment tribunal ruled that Ms Coulson was unfairly dismissed as well as sexually discriminated against.  

A survey by Aviva - who polled 2,000 workers - found that employees were happier before the pandemic.

The report revealed several key findings - including the fact that 52 per cent of employees agree that the boundaries between work and home are becoming increasingly blurred; 54 per cent state that their employer has worked hard to create a sense of company togetherness, despite only 15 per cent agreeing that their employer understands what motivates them - and whilst 43 per cent described their wellbeing as less than good, 84 per cent stated they would carry on working even if they felt unwell.

Almost half - 44 per cent - felt they never fully switched off from work. The problem was worse among 18 to 24 year-olds, 63 per cent of whom said they regularly checked their emails outside working hours.  Of those employees, 25 per cent felt they were unprepared financially for unexpected events, such as serious illness, accident or redundancy.

The poll also found that 58 per cent of employees felt they were neglecting their physical health and 55 per cent felt they were neglecting their mental health because of the pressures of work.  In addition, 43 per cent said they were troubled by how much their work interfered with their personal life.

Rachel Suff - Senior Employee Relations Adviser at the CIPD - said home working could lead to work intensification and urged managers to take action to prevent this.

She stated:

“Managers play a crucial role in helping to counter the ‘always on’ mindset by making sure their teams have a structure to their day that draws a clear line between work and downtime. It's also essential for managers to make sure workloads are manageable and that they have regular one-to-ones to check up on people's wellbeing.”

Kathryn Dombrowicz - Therapy Consultant at The Soke - said it was important to set clear boundaries around working hours, particularly in the current crisis.

She stated:

“Psychologically, employees might feel a need to prove their productivity while home working, perhaps feeling their jobs are at risk.”

She added that a lack of a ‘clear geographical boundary’ between work and home can contribute to staff finding they never fully detach. Employers should be aware of unusual employee activity - such as increased emails outside of working hours and during lunch and set boundaries. 

“Managers need to set realistic and clear expectations for their staff, to help them understand what exactly is required of them.  Additionally, managers could implement regular slots with their teams to touch base about how they are coping at home and identify how they can best support each other.”

Experts have warned that the coronavirus pandemic has ruined pension pots, although more people are choosing to work longer due to the rise in flexible working.

A YouGov poll of 2,114 UK adults - conducted for Smart - found that of the over 55’s who planned to retire in the future, 13 per cent had decided to delay their plans as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.

The poll also highlighted financial concerns among older employees planning to retire, with 52 per cent of all UK adults saying that they were concerned about only being able to afford a limited lifestyle in retirement.

Now planning to retire later than they had previously intended, were 8 per cent of employees - particularly those with a pension fund that has fallen in value and those working from home. 

Of those mainly from richer households - and those on furlough - 5 per cent are planning to retire earlier than they had previously intended.

Stuart Lewis - founder of Rest Less - commented that the over 50’s had been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. 

He said:

“Retirement incomes have been decimated, age discrimination is rife and the job prospects for the over 50s are particularly difficult in the current climate.”

He added that many clients who are employed and happy in their jobs are choosing to continue working to top up their pension pots while they still can and that the over 50s were more likely to be made redundant and find themselves ‘at the back of a very long queue’ for work opportunities. 

He stated:

“Some are being forced into an early retirement they cannot afford, while others are turning to retraining or setting up on their own to make ends meet.”

“We would like to see the government offer similar tailored initiatives to support the over 50s back into the workplace as well as financial incentives to businesses to encourage them to hire older workers who bring with them a wealth of life experience and wisdom, which is essential to business productivity and growth."

Emily Andrews - Senior Evidence Manager at the Centre for Ageing Better - is of the opinion that the financial impact of the pandemic has hit some groups of savers particularly hard - which could have knock-on effects on retirement plans.

She added that the decision to retire was ‘very personal’, stating:

“There are positive and negative factors driving these decisions. For some, the mass experiment in flexible working brought about by the pandemic has made working for longer a more appealing prospect.

Our own research with the Institute for Fiscal Studies showed that older workers currently working from home were more likely to say they were now planning to retire later.”

An employee of Talbot Underwriting Services Ltd - a Lloyd’s of London underwriter - who suffered significant incidents of bullying and was ‘berated’ in front of his colleagues in the middle of an open plan office, has won an employment tribunal lawsuit.

According to a judgment by Employment Judge Emery at the London Central Employment Tribunal, Liam Vaughan - an accounts assistant - was subjected to ‘significant incidents of bullying’ from management during his employment at Talbot Underwriting Services.

Mr Vaughan had worked for his employer for four years with no formal issues before the bullying incident. In 2017 and 2018, his performance was described as good by his manager.  

However, in August 2017 a member of the same team went on long-term sick leave and Mr Vaughan undertook additional work for which he lacked the relevant experience.  In 2018, this was followed by another colleague leaving and Mr Vaughan then undertook further work in which he had no experience.  Two members of the finance team, at a grievance hearing, stated that they believed he had not been ‘given the appropriate training or guidance’.

In February 2019, an incident occurred where Mr Vaughan was called to his manager’s table in the middle of the open-plan office and ‘berated’ in front of his colleagues.  Mr Vaughan stated that her manner ‘was extremely shocking and belittling’.  He did, however, agree that she had good reason to raise the issues. Mr Vaughan told the tribunal.

“This is not the first time I have been subject to this behaviour …. With this continuous ridicule I am left in a vulnerable position which undoubtedly has an impact on the work I produce.”

Other staff members who had witnessed the incident stated that they were embarrassed and uncomfortable at Mr Vaughan’s treatment.

Later the same day, Mr Vaughan offered to resign and told the tribunal, …” with the benefit of hindsight given what happened afterwards I should have resigned at that point.” 

Mr Vaughan raised a grievance and was interviewed by a senior manager and an HR manager.  The grievance was upheld with the line manager in question being given a final written warning - with the recommendation of disciplinary action - and a different line manager was appointed. However, Mr Vaughan was signed off work for some weeks with anxiety, tension and poor sleep.

On Mr Vaughan’s return to work, he noticed that he was being treated differently by some staff, including senior management who would have acknowledged him prior to his grievance hearing.

In March 2019 it was noticed by a senior manager that Mr Vaughan’s performance standards had slipped. Despite that, the issue was never raised to Mr Vaughan for explanation and in early August 2019, his line manager also raised concerns.

During this time, Mr Vaughan had been involved in several conversations with HR and finance team managers – during which he told them he wished to resign.  He was persuaded to withdraw his resignation letter by the finance team senior manager - and he did so on the assumption the company would not pursue a formal capability process.  He thought he would be ‘given a chance on a fairer playing field’.  

In late August, Mr Vaughan received a letter inviting him to a formal ‘stage one capability meeting’ as his line manager felt he had an ‘attitude and negativity and there was no improvement’.   Mr Vaughan believed this was a deceitful act on the part of management - refusing his resignation letter in order to enable a written warning to be issued with intent to prevent him going to tribunal.

Mr Vaughan finally resigned in September 2019.

Judge Emery, in his ruling, stated that he was satisfied that the coldness shown to Mr Vaughan by senior management contributed to his view that his employer ‘was not happy with him following his grievance - and it contributed to his view that the respondent no longer wanted him to work for them’ and as such his claim of constructive unfair dismissal was well founded.

Paul Holcroft - Managing Director at Croner - said:

“As seen here, the company’s clear mistreatment of an employee as a direct result of their complaint was a critical factor that led to them being found liable. Employers should always remember that the way staff are supervised is crucial to their continued productivity, job satisfaction and retention.”

In an employment tribunal held before Employment Judge Matthews, the Judge ruled that the employer was liable for humiliating, degrading and offensive remarks made to Mrs M Compton, who was claiming that she was harassed and directly discriminated against because of her age. 

Mrs Compton worked for Eden Private Staff Ltd - who provide an introductory service for domestic staff - from March 2018 until her dismissal in June 2019. She was initially employed as an administrator but in August 2018 she applied for a job as a search consultant, which she commenced in January 2019. She was required to serve a further probationary period.

During the time that Mrs Compton worked there she stated that her manager made comments implying that her memory was defective because of her age and that she had Alzheimer’s which was linked to her poor performance. She was 57 years old at the time.

In March, two managers at Eden Private Staff met Mrs Compton as part of her probationary period and discussed errors that she made in welcome letters and CVs that she was sending out.  The feedback, however, was positive as the two managers who conducted the interview - Ms Wallbridge and Ms Burridge - stated that they did not wish to discourage Mrs Compton.

A further probationary interview with Ms Wallbridge and Ms Burridge took place in April, during which Mrs Crompton was again asked to check letters and CVs more carefully before sending them out and check that the most up to date CVs were used.  At this meeting, Mrs Crompton told Ms Wallbridge and Ms Burridge that Ms Burridge was angry and impatient towards her and despite enjoying her work, she felt tearful and nervous entering work each morning.

Towards the end of May, it was decided that Mrs Crompton was taking too long to learn the basics and had to be dismissed.  She was given a letter of dismissal - citing inadequate performance during her extended probation - with her notice period ending on 21 June.  She was signed off work on 3 June due to stress and did not return. 

On 14 June, Mrs Crompton sent a grievance letter to Ms Wallbridge stating that she felt that her performance had not been the reason for her dismissal and that she felt she had been treated unfairly in connection with age discrimination.

Eden Private Staff Ltd engaged an external HR consultant to investigate the grievance.  During this investigation, Mrs Crompton reported that Ms Burridge had suggested on several occasions that Mrs Crompton had Alzheimer’s disease and that she was also of the opinion that age may have been a factor in her dismissal.

Ms Burridge was spoken to by the HR consultant when she admitted that on one occasion she said to Mrs Crompton, “That will be the Alzheimer’s”. She then stated that she realised it may have caused offence and had apologised.

In August, the HR consultant submitted a report and subsequently Mrs Crompton was sent a letter upholding her grievance relating to the extension of her probation period but dismissing her other grievances.

At the tribunal, Judge Matthews found in favour of Mrs Crompton’s claim of direct discrimination finding that the Alzheimer’s remarks were an act of direct discrimination because they would not have been made to a younger search consultant.   The Judge said that he thought that Ms Burridge saw her remarks as no more than office banter – but this did not detract from the fact that the comments violated Mrs Crompton’s dignity.

However, the tribunal ruled that the extension of Mrs Crompton’s probation period was not because of her age and that her dismissal was based on her performance with age not being a factor.  

Eden Private Staff were ordered to pay Mrs Crompton £900 as compensation for the harassment and direct discrimination together with interest of £100.41. The evidence was said to suggest that any injury would have been slight and that no complaints were lodged at the time the remarks about Alzheimer’s were made.  The Judge added that Mrs Crompton’s complaint had always been that her dismissal was unfair.  Only when speaking to the HR consultant, did Mrs Crompton bring “the shift of emphasis towards age discrimination.” 

Paul Holcroft - Managing Director of Croner - stated that this case showed how banter is never an excuse for discriminatory comments and that tribunals were unlikely to uphold such a defence for this behaviour. 

He stated:

“It is therefore crucial that all employees, and managers, are aware of what constitutes acceptable conversation at work.  If allegations are made against any member of staff, they should be fully investigated, and disciplinary action taken if necessary.”

Experts have warned that surveillance of staff work communications has increased since the pandemic began.

A recent poll of more than 3,000 UK workers - which was part of a survey commissioned by the TUC to raise awareness of the experience of workers and trade unions when artificial intelligence (AI) is used by employers to carry out people-management functions - found that 15 per cent reported that employer monitoring has grown since March.

Work communication was cited as being screened by 27 per cent of respondents; 13 per cent had experienced desktop monitoring, whilst 8 per cent stated their social media had been screened.

The survey also found that 26 per cent of employers were using technologies to assess when employees started and finished work and 12 per cent monitored the amount of time taken on breaks.  One respondent stated that their workplace used monitoring software that logged hours worked; took photographic timecards every 10 minutes via a webcam; recorded social media usage and counted the number of keyboard strokes per hour.

When workers were asked about their experience of technologies making or informing decisions about them at work, 22 per cent of respondents said they had experience of use of technologies of this type for absence management, 15 per cent stated ratings; 14 per cent for work allocation; 14 per cent for timetabling shifts and 14 per cent in the assessment of training needs and allocation.

The research revealed that only 28 per cent of workers are comfortable with technology being used to make decisions about people at work, with 56 per cent saying that introducing new technologies to monitor the workplace damaged trust between workers and employers.

Frances O’Grady - General Secretary of the TUC - said worker surveillance technology had taken off since the start of the outbreak as employers grappled with the reality of increased remote working. She stated that businesses have invested in it to keep tabs on their workers; set more demanding targets and automate decisions about who to let go.  She stated:

“Workers must be properly consulted on the use of AI and be protected from punitive ways of working. As we emerge from this crisis, tech must be used to make working lives better – not to rob people of their dignity.”

Hayfa Mohdzain - Senior Research Adviser at the CIPD - urged employers to think twice before introducing any kind of monitoring or surveillance software to measure an individual’s productivity, highlighting previous CIPD research that had found that intrusive workplace surveillance can damage trust, have a negative impact on morale and cause stress and anxiety.  She added:

“Consequently, excessive monitoring can get in the way of performance. Employers may get much better results by investing in line manager training and supporting employees to maximise results.”

Padma Tadi - Senior Associate at Irwin Mitchell - stated that, on the face of it, using AI and technology for workplace monitoring can be a quick and objective way to maintain and monitor performance at work. However, she cautioned employers to always back up the AI’s findings with good management and workplace practices – saying: 

“The concern I would have as an employer is the wild objectivity of such data, and it could give rise to an increase in discrimination claims if decisions are purely based on gathering data. It’s not taking into account individual facts and circumstances, including protected characteristics.”

She warned that using such technologies may fall foul of GDPR regulation and compliance as there was specific wording in the data protection regulations about managing the ‘blurred line between personal and private life’ and also how you gather and retain that data.

The impact of COVID-19 and the acceleration of digital in 2020 has brought into focus the UK’s digital skills gap – according to a report from Microsoft UK. Although organisations are attempting to respond, recover and reimagine operations.

Up-skilling employees was said to be the top priority in the next six months - by 32 per cent of C-level executives surveyed. In addition, 80 per cent of leaders stated that it is their belief that investment in digital skills will be important to the country’s economic recovery.  Employees who were also surveyed reportedly felt as though overcoming the digital skills gap is important for the future.

Of the respondents to the survey, 59 per cent said that developing their digital skills will be important to their employability after COVID-19 ends – with 70 per cent saying that they feel that access to digital skills is vital for economic and social inclusion.

Leaders identified the barriers to helping to remedy the skills gap as cost and lack of skills strategy - with the main barrier being cost, as stated by 37 per cent of respondents and secondly, skills strategy being named by 28 per cent.

Forty four per cent of UK leaders stated that they worry that the current lack of digital skills will impact negatively on next year’s success and 63 per cent of employees admit that they do not have the required digital skills needed in the new and emerging roles in their industry.

Simon Lambert - Chief Learning Officer at Microsoft UK - when speaking to HR magazine, said:

“Awareness is the first step to action. There is a sense of urgency to act now but what’s preventing them is, understandably, cost, the second obstacle is the lack of a skills investment strategy and the third is not knowing what skills initiatives to focus on.

It’s a new era of investment, collaboration, commitment from both employees and employers and the government alike. Especially as we continue to respond, recover and move on post-COVID.”

He added:

“Equipping all employees with strong digital skills is not just a commercial imperative but a societal one. A way to overcome barriers of inequality and regional imbalance while also fostering greater diversity, inclusion and economic growth.”

Peter Cheese - CEO of CIPD - was quoted in the report as saying:

“We under-invest in our people in the workplace and now need to strengthen alignment between education, employment and lifelong learning.”

To help address the need, Microsoft is launching a global skills initiative aimed at bringing more digital skills to 25 million people worldwide by the end of the year.

After surveying 1,500 small and medium business staff nationwide, the HR and people management platform - Employment Hero - found that since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a worrying lack of support for employees.  More than 31 per cent of respondents said they had not received adequate support from their employers since the onset of COVID-19.

Particularly in smaller organisations, the HR function has been under increasing pressure by the problems triggered by the pandemic.  The replies from those surveyed have indicated that 51.2 per cent of small business employees have little or no contact from their employers with regards to mental health issues and home-based health and safety.

A further 46.5 per cent of staff from British small and medium size enterprises did not receive any support on motivation and 55 per cent stated that they did not receive any financial guidance.

Of the furloughed staff surveyed, 50 per cent said they had not had any type of support from their HR teams during the pandemic and 43 per cent of furloughed staff also stated that they were pessimistic about receiving adequate support from HR in the future.

Of the employees who expressed doubts about getting the adequate support in the future, almost a third - 30 per cent - revealed that they did not expect their HR team to be equipped for their future personal requirements. HR resources are seen to be under pressure due to the pandemic and they have a stretched remit for employee care.

COVID-19 was also found to have changed the expectations of staff - with a greater number of them desiring remote and flexible working. Earlier in the year, Employment Hero conducted a Remote Work Survey and found that 92 per cent of employees would continue to work from home regularly if given the opportunity. 

However, a survey conducted by Mind, the mental health charity, found that more than half of adults, 60 per cent, and 68 per cent of young people said that their mental health got worse during lockdown - due to isolation which impacted on their work motivation.

Ben Thompson - CEO and co-founder of Employment Hero - said:

“This year has presented unique challenges for many SMEs. However, employers still have a duty of care to staff. The wellbeing of British workers can’t be overlooked by businesses in this difficult environment of job security concerns and isolation. As well as a need to prioritise employees’ mental health, 2020 has illuminated the need for a remote-first work future. The right cloud technology can empower small businesses to future-proof their HR processes and provide better support to their home working staff. This can transform the entire employee experience for your team, the biggest stakeholders in your company.”

New research has shown that there is more stability for employment expected this year, but three in ten employers are still planning redundancies.

According to the latest Labour Market Outlook report from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and The Adecco Group, the pace of decline in UK job prospects is starting to slow this autumn.  This is due to modest improvements in planned recruitment activity and a slight decrease in employer’s redundancy intentions.

The survey, conducted in late September and involving more than 1000 employers covering all sectors of the economy, showed that the net employment intentions figure - which measures the difference between the proportion of employers who expect to increase staff levels and those who expect to decrease staff levels - has risen to –1 from a record low of –8 in July to September 2020.

The improvement is marked in the private sector where the negative balance is up -5, from -13 in the summer.

The intent to recruit has edged up for the second consecutive quarter, with 53 per cent of employers planning to recruit in the last three months of the year. This is up by four percentage points from the summer – but down 16 per cent on the same quarter last year.  Private sector intent to recruit has gone up from 44 per cent to 49 per cent since the last quarter.

The survey showed that 30 per cent of employers plan to make redundancies this quarter, as opposed to 33 per cent in the summer. However, despite the decrease 17 per cent stated that they could not say whether they would be making any redundancies during the next three months.

It was also noted that weaker employment growth has led to a noticeable increase in the number of applicants for vacancies over all skill levels, most apparently for low-skilled jobs - with an average of twenty five applicants for each vacancy, against twenty applicants in the summer. This compares to an increase from seven to ten applicants for the medium roles.

Gerwyn Davies - Senior Labour Market Adviser for the CIPD - stated:

“When it comes to the immediate jobs outlook, the best that can be said is that the situation is getting worse more slowly. Employment looks set to keep falling and the relatively weak demand for labour means that it is going to be a long and hard winter - affecting young jobseekers in particular. The survey evidence shows that while recruitment freezes, pay restraint or cuts in hours of work via government schemes have helped save many jobs that might otherwise have been lost; holding onto staff when order books are far from healthy eats into company profits. Despite the furlough scheme recently being extended, more employers might look to reassess staffing levels early in the new year as they plan for what their workforce will look like medium to long-term.  There is also a need to significantly increase bespoke, sector-based training and to increase investment in the National Retraining Scheme to equip workers who do lose their jobs with the skills to find work in parts of the economy that continue to grow.” 

Alex Fleming - Country Head and President of Staffing and Solutions, the Adecco Group UK and Ireland - commented:

“Despite the jobs market remaining uncertain, it’s positive to see a slowing of downward trends, with redundancy intentions decreasing modestly compared to the summer Labour Market Outlook report and more than half of UK employers planning to recruit in Q4. 

Employers have continued to adopt a variety of tactics in order to reduce redundancies, including the furlough scheme and redeployment. However, with a new month-long lockdown now in place, it’s more important than ever that as much support as possible continues to be provided by the Government and organisations to help minimise the jobs fallout.  

Providing upskilling and reskilling opportunities is a key way to do this, as it will not only help to boost redeployment efforts, but also help career starters who are looking to enter into the workforce for the first time against a backdrop of increased labour supply. 

There is also continued demand to maintain morale and engagement at this unprecedented time, so focus should remain on building positive workplace cultures and strengthening the resilience of companies and workforces alike.” 

Data from the Association of British Insurers (ABI) shows that despite the number of people accessing their pension as a flexible income increasing by 56% between April and September this year, the number of withdrawals of all types from pension pots still remained below 2019 levels.

The ABI found that whilst some held off from withdrawing money at the start of the year due to stock market volatility, “a combination of factors” - such as a change in circumstance - had led to savers returning to withdraw from their pensions.

During the period April to September 2020, the number of people withdrawing all of their pension pot rose by a huge 94%, compared to 51 per cent during the same period in 2019.

Additionally, this year number of people taking only a tax-free lump sum has increased by 55% and those buying a guaranteed income for life (annuity) increased by 41%.

Having said that, many savers are still resisting the urge to dip into their pension pots in the face of financial uncertainty brought about by the pandemic.

Rob Yuille, Head of Long-Term Savings at the ABI stated:

“Government restrictions, stock market volatility and employment prospects are just some of the factors weighing on pension savers’ minds when considering taking money out of their pension pot. Everyone is different and it is important to find the right solution for your circumstances. Getting financial advice or guidance can help provide options and clarity on what to do with your savings.”

He added:

“We welcome the Money and Pensions Service confirming that they will develop a later life checklist for over-50s, especially those facing redundancy or income reductions in light of Covid-19.”  

Mr. Justice Linden, during the deliverance of his judgement in the case of Farah v Abdullah & Others, made it abundantly clear that expert witnesses must expect their opinions to be closely scrutinised by the courts and be ready for a robust challenge.  Those experts who fail to survive that scrutiny can expect to be severely criticised.

The case in question was a personal injury action in which the claimant had been severely injured in an accident concerning two cars.  In the first instance, the claimant was knocked down by a car and thrown on to the bonnet of a second car.  He was then thrown of the bonnet of the second car and hit once again by the first car.  As a result of this, he suffered fractures and diffuse axonal injury.

The question of which injury had been suffered at which impact had to be resolved by the judge.

Two consultant neurosurgeons attended the court to assist with the diffuse axonal injury and before hearing the expert witness evidence, the judge stated that his assessment of the evidence given by the witnesses would include whether or not the evidence was given in good faith; whether the expert was responsible, competent and respectable i.e. not adopting an extreme position, able to make the necessary concessions and adhering to the spirit as well as the words of the duty to the court.  In addition, the expert evidence had to be tested against the whole of the evidence in the case.

One of the consultant neurosurgeons put forward a series of theories as to how the diffuse axonal injury could have been sustained, but in the view of the judge, none of those theories were sustainable when assessed against their own internal logic or against the rest of the evidence in the case. The judge also rejected that expert’s interpretation of the CCTV evidence and described his use of the literature and available studies as being superficial.  He added:

“I did not accept the evidence on the key issues in this case, not only because it did not accord with my view of the evidence and that of the other experts in the case, but also because I found him to be highly unreliable as a witness. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not in a position to comment on his qualities as a doctor and do not do so. But…..I found his approach as a witness to be careless and partisan in a way which was inconsistent with his role and duties as an expert.”

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has struck off a personal injury lawyer who inflated costs; put false information before a court; misled her insurer and ‘wrecked lives’. 

The tribunal heard that Kirna Devi Madhas had been challenged by insurers at Leeds County Court after submitting costs claims for personal injury claims.

Her firm - formerly known as GSD Law Ltd and of which she was sole director - was found to have falsely represented hourly rates in bills of costs and falsely claimed for costs, on the basis that work was carried out by a senior fee earner. Under cross-examination, Ms Madhas admitted that a conditional fee agreement (CFA) she had submitted was forged.

Her misconduct in failing to inform clients of adverse costs orders was described by the tribunal as a ‘client’s worst nightmare’.  In one instance the client was not informed of the court hearing date or the outcome of her case.  One client was quoted as saying that she was treated like a ‘throw-away commodity’ and described the impact of having a charging order made on her house over unpaid costs as ‘devastating’.  She said the main ‘ripple’ in her life was ‘the delay in starting a family because of the financial impact of having a charging order on my home’.

The tribunal found that Ms Madhas’s motivation was a ‘nakedly financial one and greed was at the heart of this matter’. 

In December 2017, the Court of Appeal rejected a challenge by GSD Law Ltd, to a ruling by District Judge Neaves that the law firm had submitted a series of dishonest costs claims.  District Judge Neaves concluded that - far from being inadvertent or careless - these mistakes were deliberate and reflected Ms Madhas’ dishonesty.

GSD Law Ltd initially sought £225,000 in costs for fourteen successful personal injury claims. The formal bills that followed totalled just under £160,000 but were later reduced to £128,000.

In addition to admitting the forged CFA during cross-examination, Ms Madhas also admitted making false allegations to the Costs Lawyer Standards Board about the conduct of Allianz’s costs lawyer, Jon Williams of Williams Associates Costs Lawyers.  These were described by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as ‘unfounded and malicious complaints’ against Mr Williams.   

They added:

“Many of her clients had suffered personal injuries and looked to her to help them obtain redress and they had not expected or deserved their vulnerabilities to be exploited by the respondent for her own gain and to find themselves in an even worse position.”

The tribunal were also informed that eleven complaints had been made about GSD Law Ltd to the Legal Ombudsman - but Ms Madhas failed to comply with any of the awards made to complainants.

Ms Madhas was not present at the disciplinary hearing and put forward no mitigation. She was struck off and ordered to pay costs of £40,000.

‘The Best Warning System: Whistleblowing during Covid-19’, a report by the whistleblowing charity Protect, has found that 20 per cent of employees who have gone to their bosses concerned over furlough fraud and breaches of Covid-19 safety rules have been sacked as a result. It also found that 41 per cent of employees with Covid-19 concerns were ignored by their employers – increasing from 31 per cent in 2019.

Between 23 March and 30 September 2020, Protect - which runs an Advice Line for whistleblowers and supports more than 3,000 whistleblowers each year - has been inundated with Covid-19 whistleblowing concerns.  It has examined 638 cases related to coronavirus, including 62 per cent of complaints about furlough fraud; 34 per cent lack of social distancing and personal protective equipment in the workplace and 4 per cent of other rights violations.

The report demonstrates the role whistleblowers can play in revealing where employers are fraudulently claiming public money.

Liz Gardiner - Protect Chief Executive - said:

“There is no excuse for employers to ignore whistleblowers, but during a global pandemic, it is a danger for us all when concerns are not acted on and the consequences could be a matter of life and death.”

She added:

“We all owe thanks to whistleblowers who do the right thing and speak out about wrongdoing in the workplace. But if employers continue to ignore their concerns – or worse – dismiss them for speaking up, we all need to be extremely concerned.”

Findings reported that managers were more likely to be dismissed for raising Covid-19 concerns - with 32 per cent of managers compared with 21 per cent of non-managers - losing their jobs. Furlough fraud was found to come mostly from very small organisations, with 76 per cent of callers describing their company size as between 1-49 employees.

Kate Palmer - Associate Director of HR advisory at Peninsula - stated that the report could be a prompt for the government to improve protections for whistleblowers.

She said:

“At the moment, though, the government has not released further guidance on how they wish to tackle this issue, if at all, with regards to the employers who ignore whistleblowers’ disclosures.”

She warned that employers who dismissed whistleblowers and were found guilty of unfair dismissal could face paying a significant amount in damages including a basic award of up to £16,140, as well as an uncapped compensatory award.  

The report recommends a legal standard on employers to have whistleblowing arrangements in place; a requirement to give whistleblowers feedback on the concerns raised and that a penalty regime where an organisation can be fined or sanctioned for breaching the whistleblowing standards should be introduced.  In addition, the institution of new legal standards on all regulators to ensure they deal effectively and promptly with whistleblowing concerns being raised to them and regulators doing much more to drive up standards of whistleblowing arrangements amongst entities they regulate. Legal aid and reform to whistleblowing law is also needed to ensure that whistleblowers who are treated badly, or dismissed, have an effective remedy.

Protect’s Liz Gardiner - added:

“We want lessons to be learned from our report which demonstrates real issues around fraud and public safety. Organisations have a duty of care to protect their staff. Whistleblowers are doing the right thing speaking up in a pandemic to keep themselves and others safe – employers need to keep their side of the deal and listen and act on the concerns they are hearing.”

Darren Jones MP - Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee – said: 

“Whistleblowing is a vital means for workers to raise concerns and shine a light on wrongdoing. Putting in place effective whistleblowing arrangements should be a key part of good governance, helping to ensure that people are encouraged to speak out and that their concerns are listened to and acted upon. During the coronavirus crisis, workers came forward with concerns about their workplace, on issues such as protective equipment or working practices, and it’s important employers play their part in ensuring effective whistleblowing arrangements are in place.”

According to new research by Randstad Risesmart UK - an outplacement firm - who polled eighty-five HR professionals working in firms employing approximately 50,000 people, the study found that every redundancy costs HR professionals seven and a quarter hours of work.

A quarter of HR professionals stated that the percentage of redundancies that are not simple processes - such as cases that are going to tribunal - is rising and at present, stands at 28 per cent of the total number of redundancies. These more complicated processes represent 140 hours work for an HR professional.

Simon Lyle - UK Managing Director of Randstad Risesmart - said:

“Every situation is unique and it's a different process for individuals compared to larger redundancy programmes. Typically, it’s a day’s worth of work per exit - a series of consultations plus the requisite prep over a two-week period. Problems arise if cases go to tribunal. Then the process is longer and more resource heavy for HR departments - four weeks’ work.”

Between 450,000 and 700,000 redundancies are forecast by the Institute for Employment Studies for the autumn of this year.  This will mean a huge rise in HR’s workload.

Simon Lyle - speaking to HR magazine - said that the months ahead will be a balancing act for people leaders and added:

"What HR teams lack, at the moment, is time. First, they've been run hot for a little while now. Second, the job now requires more work as HRDs seek to demonstrate their department's impact to the C-suite.  A chunk of their time is now spent on showing that they are hitting business metrics and that talent is affecting the bottom line. There's just less flex to deal with pandemic-level events like COVOID-19."

The research highlights that of the approximately 152,000 people that work full time in employment activities across the UK, 65 per cent are likely to be involved in the redundancy process - resulting in 168 hours’ worth of overtime per full time HR employee over the course of the second half of 2020.

Simon Lyle commented that due to the scale of potential job cuts, the need for a ‘human touch’ in HR is highlighted.  He went on to say that although the spending on HR technology has risen over the last decade and HR headcount spending has decreased - technology “can only do so much.”

He added:

“Technology cannot help HR teams with the very human and personal job of making large numbers of employees redundant. For that you need people - especially when cases go to tribunal.”

Recent research undertaken by Opinium on behalf of GRiD (the industry body for group risk) amongst 500 HR decision makers and 1,165 employees, showed that only 57 per cent of employers believe their workforce is aware of all their benefits and understands them.  Over a third - 35 per cent - of employees say their company does not communicate benefits or if they do, they do not recall having done so.

It was found that 28 per cent of employers believe their workforce is aware of all their benefits but does not understand them all and 10 per cent of employers believe their workforce is only aware of some of their benefits.

According to 38 per cent of employers, the most popular method of communicating benefits is in a staff welcome pack – with the least popular method being posting details to home addresses.  However, employees have a different recollection of the methods their employers use, with 35 per cent not believing that their employer communicates benefits – or cannot remember if they do so. 

Katharine Moxham, spokesperson for GRiD said:

“A huge amount of resource, time, energy and money is invested in compiling employee benefits packages. This is maximised when a workforce is aware of the benefits and understands them.

Appreciation of benefits is connected to how well they’re communicated, so the research also looked at the frequency and methods of communication.

• 38 percent of employers communicate details of their benefits when there’s a change to the terms and conditions of a particular benefit
• 29 percent communicate benefits at recruitment stage
• 26 percent communicate benefits at least quarterly
• 22 percent communicate benefits at performance reviews
• 21 percent communicate benefits once a year
• 8 percent don’t communicate their benefits

The most effective communication strategies are those that are regular. Employee benefits don’t always resonate with employees if they don’t seem relevant at a particular point in time. However, life stages and circumstances change regularly, so benefits that weren’t relevant one day, may very well be the next.”

She added:

“We see people at some of the most vulnerable stages in their life in our industry: at times of ill-health, disability and bereavement. Circumstances that by their nature are often unforeseen. This is exactly why benefits that support such situations need to be communicated regularly, so they are front of mind when they are needed.

There’s a disconnect between how employers communicate, and what employees remember. This clearly demonstrates the need for regular communication and using a mix of methods for communications to be effective. Employees won’t always remember what’s been communicated if it wasn’t important at the time.  Likewise, different methods will resonate more with some employees than others. Some will diligently read their welcome pack or handbook, and others will be more likely to engage with the company intranet. There are also increasing options to promote digitally, and it’s important that this method is also embraced to reach all sections of a workforce.”

Katharine Moxham concluded:

“These findings are particularly pertinent given new legislation, which came into force 6 April this year requiring employers to inform employees about their employment and benefits on day one or on request. But, in addition to complying with this, to increase engagement and for benefits to be utilised, they need to be understood, to which communication is central. Whether we’re talking about pensions, healthcare, employer-sponsored life assurance, income protection or critical illness, the approach needs to be the same. Employers need to tell their workforce what they’re offered, communicate via as many means as possible, and do so regularly.”

Labour MP Stella Creasy has presented a Private Members Bill to Parliament to make provision for a right for employees to obtain information relating to the pay of a comparator.

The Equal Pay Information and Claims Bill (EPIC) 2020 -  which was submitted to the House of Commons - has cross-party support and the backing of former Home Office Minister and Tory Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, Caroline Nokes.

If passed, the bill would give employees the right to know what their comparators earn and will also require companies with at least 100 employees to report their gender and ethnicity pay gaps. Since 2017, companies have had to publish and report figures regarding their gender pay gap – which is the difference between the average earnings of men and women – but only if they employ 250 or more staff.

Additionally, as it stands women have the right to ask about a colleague's pay but employers are not required to provide details. This new bill would allow women to request pay data relating to a male colleague if they suspected there was a gap and provides a right to equal pay where even a single source can rectify unequal pay. Stella Creasy pointed out that 9 out of 10 women in the UK were working for firms where women were, on average, paid less than men and figures released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed in the year to April 2019, the gender pay gap for full-time workers rose to 8.9%

Creasy stated:

"Pay discrimination becomes so prevalent because it is hard to get pay transparency,”

She added:

"Unless a woman knows that a man who is doing equal work to her is being paid more she cannot know if she is being paid equally.”

The Fawcett Society also conducted a poll which was released to coincide with the Bill’s submission. This found that only 31% of women thought their employer would tell them if their male colleagues doing the same work, earned more.

Charles Cotton, Senior Reward and Performance Adviser at the CIPD said:

"Having fair recruitment, reward and promotion processes in place – and being open about these as well as the outcomes – should avoid the need for employees to ask their colleagues what they're earning.”

The Bill is unlikely however to become law, unless it is supported by the government.

Government statistics have revealed that 1.25 million workers - 4.5 per cent of employees - are not fully proficient in their roles. Compared to 1.15 million in 2017, this was the first increase in the number of employees unable to do their jobs properly since 2011.

The Department for Education survey has revealed that staff training has fallen to its lowest level in nine years - and experts warn that the cutting of Learning and Development budgets will only continue to harm their own cause.

The Employer Skills Survey 2019 revealed that workplace training was at its lowest level in a decade last year. In the year to December 2019, 61 per cent of employers had offered training to staff - down from 66 per cent in 2017. Over the same period, it was found that the proportion of staff undergoing training was 60 per cent - the lowest proportion reported since the Department for Education began producing these reports in 2011.

This survey of more than 81,000 employers across England, Northern Ireland and Wales was conducted before the coronavirus outbreak began impacting on the economy.

Lizzie Crowley - Senior Skills Adviser at the CIPD - said:

“Some of the early indicators that we have got from our Labour Market Outlook data is that training budgets have been impacted by Covid-19 and the subsequent downturn, and they are likely to be so over the coming year, or however long the recession lasts for.”

She added that a CIPD poll conducted on employers in June, showed that 22 per cent of firms planned to cut their training budgets this year - with only 16 per cent intending to increase it - a false economy with employers who took this route “shooting themselves in the foot”.

Steve Ludlow - Head of Executive Education at Henley Business School - stated that cutting training budgets when businesses should instead be preparing for a “new normal” was short-term thinking that “reflected weak management and leadership.” 

He added:

“What needs to happen is for talent development to be seen as a vital tool for organisational transformation, not a discretionary cost.”

Jane Hickie - Managing Director of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers - warned that, to work, the skills guarantee would need “major investment” and reform of the adult education system.  

She stated:

“AELP’s view is that the government’s pledges on retraining will be best met if it brings adult education budgets together and makes them accessible via individual skills accounts where the learner can exercise choice over the type of learning needed.”

Steve Ludlow added:

“The issue is not to do with meeting political commitments, it is about ensuring the long-term health of British industry. The need for continuous development of people is essential to respond to changing technology, customer demand and organisational processes. The rate of change has increased in recent years – Covid has simply accelerated matters.”

The Department for Education’s report also showed the number of training days taken by staff fell to 99 million in 2019, down from 105 million in 2017.

It stated:

“This equated to six training days per annum per person trained and 3.6 days per employee, the lowest levels over the 2011-2019 period.”

It added, “…….a potentially significant turning point, with decreases across several key measures including the proportion of employers training, the total training days provided, and employer investment in training.

Employers were being less proactive and fewer employers with skills gaps in their workforce had taken any steps to address the lack of proficiency compared with 2017.”

It also said:

“The outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 has clearly provided a significant shock to the economy and is likely to have lasting and significant effects on employers, and their recruitment and skills needs.”

According to new research by management consultancy Lane4, 44 per cent of employees under 35 years old say that a lack of motivation has been hindering their performance at work since the start of the coronavirus pandemic.

One thousand employees over the UK were surveyed – the survey being carried out by YouGov – and the results showed that the performance of the under 35 year olds is twice, at 44 per cent, as likely to be affected badly by lack of motivation than that of 45-54-year olds, at 22 per cent.  The average for all age groups is 28 per cent.

Other factors impacting the performance of all workers in the current climate were shown to be - 21 per cent distractions from working at home; 19 per cent stated lack of connection or communication to colleagues within, and 14 per cent stated lack of connection or communication to colleagues outside, the people’s team.

Distractions from working at home were found to be most likely - at 30 per cent - to impact between the ages of 35 and 44 years. A lack of connection to colleagues within their team is cited by 26 per cent as most likely to impact the performance of people under 35 years. 

Employees are speaking to fewer colleagues since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic.  Prior to the virus, 56 per cent of employees had face-to-face or virtual conversations of at least five minutes with three or more of their colleagues, but this has dropped to 37 per cent since the pandemic.

Cited by 70 per cent of under 35-year olds is that encouraging better communication is the best way for organisations to establish trust between managers and employees.

Adrian Moorhouse - Managing Director, Lane4 - commented:

“It’s crucial that these findings are not misconstrued as the latest ‘evidence’ in support of the long standing – and deeply flawed – ‘lazy millennial’ stereotype. The pandemic has impacted us all, but an increasing number of studies show that younger workers have been some of the hardest hit when it comes to furlough and lockdown loneliness, both of which affect motivation.

There’s a lot of research into the psychology of motivation and what drives it. When considering these drivers, such as belonging and autonomy, in the context of remote working, it’s clear that young people may be disproportionately affected. We know, for example, that there can be a natural tendency during times of crisis for leadership and management teams to become very task focused and take on more responsibilities themselves. This can impact the sense of autonomy, and as a result motivation, of their often-younger colleagues.”

He continued:

“It’s understandable that in the early days of the pandemic a lot of organisational focus went towards keeping the lights on and implementing technologies to enable people to work remotely. But attention now needs to turn towards the behaviours that are crucial to enabling people to perform their best in the new world of work. The good news is that motivation and connection can be enhanced. We know that one of the most effective ways to do this is through managers. Because they speak to their team consistently, managers are in a unique position to understand and enhance the different factors impacting the performance of their individual team members.

For many people in HR, the recent months have been among their busiest. 

A poll by People Management finds that most HR functions consist of 10 people or fewer and look to remain that way - or to grow - as the profession plays a vital role amid the coronavirus crisis.

The survey polled 735 employers and found that 70 per cent had reported an HR team size of 10 people or fewer, whilst 18 per cent said their HR team was between 11 and 50-strong. A team of 51 to 100 was reported by 6 per cent; 3 per cent 101 to 250 and 2 per cent more than 1,000.

The crisis has undoubtedly increased the standing of HR in many quarters and respect for the expertise found within. The survey found that the majority of HR functions had not furloughed those within their ranks. The reasons given for that were that staff wellbeing issues are high on the agenda - and many firms are in the middle of difficult restructuring and redundancy decisions, which call for HR support and insight. 

When asked whether respondents anticipated downsizing their HR teams in view of the coronavirus pandemic, 49 per cent said that their team would probably stay the same over the next few years; 28 per cent said it would grow slightly and 4 per cent anticipated a significant increase – despite the anticipation of making redundancies in other parts of the workforce.

In terms of whether Learning & Development and Organisational Development were counted as part of the overall figure, 83 per cent of respondents said that Learning & Development was and 79 per cent said the same for Organisational Development.

The most common average ratio of HR team members to number in the workforce was 10 or fewer for an employee base of 50 to 249 – which 34 per cent of respondents fell into. An HR team of 10 or fewer for a workforce of 250 to 999 staff members was reported by 22 per cent and 10 per cent stated a team of 10 or fewer for a workforce of 49 or fewer employees.

The sectors with the largest HR teams were found to be financial, legal and business services - 3 per cent and 1 per cent respectively reported HR teams of more than 1,000 and 1 per cent and 2 per cent respectively reported a team of 501 to 1,000 in size.

Anna Penfold - Head of the HR practice at executive search firm Russell Reynolds - told People Management that ….HR team sizes staying buoyant was likely a sign of the many vital issues – both immediate and long term – people professionals were helping their organisations contend with in the wake of the pandemic. These included initial redundancies, but also significant changes in estate size and office mix, what that does to culture and engagement and the tax ramifications of a new way of working. 

She added:

“This has also meant that talent and learning and development is being invested in over and above many other parts of the HR mix as we seek to retain the best and develop increasing skills in our people in order to innovate and deal with ambiguity and also in anticipation of further Covid-19 waves and market disruption.”

Rebekah Wallis - Director of People and CR at Ricoh UK - agreed that HR had played, and would continue to play, a vital role tackling many of the organisational issues thrown up by the crisis.

She said:

“HR has supported businesses in pivoting their strategy and supporting employees through the difficult times, all with a smile on their faces.”  

She added:

“Many strategic activities have been postponed and replaced by day-to-day, operational support.”

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) have released a briefing note - using data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) Covid-19 study - to examine how the work activity and retirement plans of older individuals have been affected by the pandemic.

The data - collected in June and July 2020 - took information from nearly 6,000 individuals who are in their 50s and older. 

The study showed that nearly a quarter of employees aged 54 and over were furloughed in June and July and of those still working, twenty per cent were working fewer hours.

Concerns about job security were rife -  with 18% of those still in employment “somewhat worried about their job security” and 5% “very or extremely worried”. However, those in the 54–59 age bracket were more worried about their job security than those older than this.

The study found that 13 per cent of older workers have changed their retirement plans as a result of the pandemic - with 8% planning to retire later and 5% planning to retire earlier.  The IFS stated that this “illustrates how disruptive this crisis has been to major life plans.”

Those employees currently on paid/unpaid leave are more likely than others to now be planning to retire earlier – which the IFS indicated could mean that they are “discouraged about their prospects of finding new work.” However those working from home are 5 percentage points more likely than other workers to now be planning to retire later.

Furthermore, those with more wealth are also more likely to be planning to retire earlier – whereas the effect of stock market falls on pension wealth is one driver of later retirement plans.

LEBC Director of Public Policy - Kay Ingram - stated:

“These research findings highlight the importance of having a financial plan in place.”

The Workforce Institute at UKG (Ultimate Kronos Group) commissioned Workplace Intelligence to conduct a survey to look at how nearly 4,000 employees and business leaders in 11 nations - including the UK and US - consider their employers responded to the coronavirus pandemic - and investigate the needs and concerns of the workforce in 2021.

The survey found that only 20 per cent of employees found that their employer met their needs during the early months of the pandemic – but happily, the survey did show that globally 33 per cent state that they now put more trust in their employers than previously, because of the reaction of their organisations.

As a new period of increased restrictions are entered, there are many employee expectations and concerns to be addressed by business and HR leaders in order to ease the anxieties felt by the workers.

The survey found that less than half - 42 per cent - of UK organisations were prepared to manage at the start of the coronavirus pandemic and 44 per cent made mistakes. However, 53 per cent of UK workers witnessed their organisations exceeding expectations during the pandemic.

In the UK, 31 per cent of workers wished that their organisation had acted with more empathy for employees and 31 per cent wanted quicker and more open communication. This was followed by 28 per cent wishing that the response had been quicker. For the future, only 57 per cent of UK workers think that their organisation will be prepared to manage through another potential spike in the virus.

The biggest employee operational concern in the UK - 42 per cent - is balancing their workloads so that they do not get burnt out. Over half of UK workers - 51 per cent - state that they have been working either the same or more hours regularly since the start of the pandemic.  However, 53 per cent of UK workers say that their organisation has taken at least some measures to guard against burnout.  

Future redundancies are also a concern for employees, with 40 per cent of UK workers concerned about redundancies and furloughs due to economic instability.  

Worldwide, 45 per cent of workers say overall cleanliness is a top concern; 42 per cent cite lounges and restrooms; 37 per cent mentioned conference rooms and 35 per cent voiced concerns about passing through high-traffic areas such as lifts, staircases, and waiting rooms.

Regarding person-to-person contact, 46 per cent are concerned about being quickly informed of presumed or confirmed positive coronavirus cases in the workplace and 43 per cent are concerned about their organisation’s ability to react quickly in those circumstances.

Globally, only 13 per cent of global employees are worried about their movements being tracked at work to fight the virus - signaling that they recognise the safety benefits to this approach to aid contact tracing. 

Dr. Chris Mullen, Ph.D., SHRM-SCP, SPHR - Executive Director, The Workforce Institute at UKG – said:

“As organisations around the world operate through an unprecedented global pandemic, they need to double down on their employee experience strategy. However, instead of looking for trendy perks, they must get back to the foundational needs every employee requires: physical safety, psychological security, job stability, and flexibility. Among employees who trust their organisation more now than before the pandemic, 70% say the company went above and beyond in their COVID-19 response. By truly putting the employee first, a mutual trust will begin to take hold that will propel employee engagement and the success of the business – to new levels.”

Dan Schawbel - Managing Partner, Workplace Intelligence; Advisory Board Member, The Workforce Institute at UKG – added:

“While organisations made mistakes during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, employees also recognise the unprecedented nature of this once-in-a-generation event. Instead of dwelling on what went wrong, employees want their employers to adapt and evolve as quickly as possible. Those that have made changes to address and protect employees – specifically physically, emotionally, and with economic stability – have earned newfound employee trust, which will be a valuable commodity that helps ensure future success.”

According to data obtained by the PA news agency through a freedom of information request, £215,756,121 in job retention scheme cash has been repaid to the government.

More than 80,000 UK firms have returned millions of pounds voluntarily in furlough scheme payments they had either taken in error or decided they did not require.

Amongst the businesses returning money are Ikea, the house builder Redrow, Games Workshop, Spectator magazine and the distribution giant, Bunzi.  

HMRC stated that the voluntary return of the money “because they no longer need the grant, or have realised they've made errors and followed our guidance on putting things right” was very welcome.

In addition, other employers have said they will not claim money under the government’s job retention bonus scheme - £1,000 for every worker brought back from furlough and kept in employment until the end of January 2021.

Iskander Fernandez - Partner at law firm BLM and specialist in white collar crime investigations - stated:

“Given that the aim of fraud is to deceive the victim, it is unlikely that any fraudster would come forward for the simple reason they could incriminate themselves by doing so.  It is more likely the payments that have been returned are from businesses that have made an error when claiming under the scheme or failed to adopt changes when the scheme was slightly tweaked post lockdown."

He commented that the voluntary repayment of furlough cash is significant and the amount that has been returned is unlikely to be from someone who claimed the funding fraudulently because it could “open that individual up to a criminal investigation and possible proceedings in a criminal court". 

Previously, HMRC estimated that up to 10 per cent of the funds paid through the scheme - £3.5bn - could have been awarded in error or fraudulently claimed. 

Jim Harra - HMRC’s first permanent secretary - told the Public Accounts Committee that his team had “made an assumption for the purposes of our planning” that the “error and fraud” rate for the furlough scheme would be between 5 and 10 per cent.

He stated:

“This will range from deliberate fraud through to error.  What we have said in our risk assessment is we are not going to set out to try to find employers that have made legitimate mistakes in compiling their claims, because this is obviously something new that everybody had to get to grips with in a very difficult time.”

He said that HMRC would be focusing on tackling abuse of the scheme.  The tax body expected all employers to check for errors in their claims and “repay any excess amount”.

Anna Birtwhistle, Employment Partner at Farrer & Co, commented that reputation was one of the prime motivations for businesses paying back the funding - adding:

“You can see there’s a pattern in some industries – Redrow was soon followed by Barratt, for example – so there’s a reputational aspect where certain companies may keep an eye on what their competitors are doing.”

However, she added that being able to repay the grant will likely be the exception rather than the rule.

Six months since remote working was adopted in response to the coronavirus pandemic, many workers in the UK are still unsure as to what their employer expects of them.

Research commissioned by Wrike - a versatile collaborative work management platform - and conducted by Survey Monkey, surveyed 500 UK employees and those with jobs not allowing them to work from home were not part of the study.

The findings of the global remote work survey from Wrike show that 47 per cent of UK office workers still do not feel as though they have had clear, formal communications regarding their working hours, availability and productivity.

Due to a lack of communication, 54 per cent surveyed admit that they do not understand the current state of the business – as well as their employer’s overall plan to survive the economic toll of the pandemic. 

The survey also reveals that in 42 per cent of cases it is only the management who are being directly briefed on plans to survive the economic toll of the pandemic and many organisations have not yet taken any steps to tackle the problem. 

Only 35 per cent of HR teams have put in place centralised projects and initiatives to support communication within the company, with 60 per cent failing to share instances of best practices between teams – leaving a negative impact on overall productivity and development.

In addition, the workers feel that as well as not being communicated with by their managers and HR teams, they are also feeling not listened to. The Wrike survey found that 49 per cent of workers feel that their feedback is not being used to improve processes whilst working remotely.  A further 41 per cent of those surveyed feel that they do not have all infrastructure i.e. hardware, data and platforms – as well as broadband internet, monitors, VPN access and desk set up.

David McGeough - Director of International Marketing at Wrike – said:

“For many UK organisations, ensuring continuity and survival was understandably the first concern when the pandemic struck. However, as the months go by, and many employees continue to work remotely, leadership teams will need to find new ways to set expectations and be more transparent around how they plan to survive any resulting economic downturn. It’s really important for businesses to be able to communicate effectively, regardless of where their employees are working from. As well as modern technologies that enable this, centralised projects and initiatives will be essential in order to nurture a working environment in which everyone feels both fully informed and listened to. It is only then that businesses can future-proof their remote working business model and can achieve the same or greater levels of productivity that they would have before the pandemic.”

The Government has confirmed that the age at which people can access money from their private pensions will rise from 55 to 57, in 2028.

On Thursday 3rd September, Stephen Timms – Labour MP for East Ham – put a written question to the Treasury asking what plans they have “….to increase the minimum age at which people can access their private pension under the tax rules….” The Government had previously proposed the increase back in 2014 - to all pension schemes aside from those in the public sector that link their normal pension age to the state pension age - but as no legislation was introduced at the time, there was uncertainty as to whether the change was still planned.

John Glen – Conservative MOP for Salisbury – confirmed the Government still planned to make the change in 2028, replying as follows:

“In 2014 the government announced it would increase the minimum pension age to 57 from 2028, reflecting trends in longevity and encouraging individuals to remain in work, while also helping to ensure pension savings provide for later life.

That announcement set out the timetable for this change well in advance to enable people to make financial plans and will be legislated for in due course.”

Whilst the change has still not been brought into law, Thursday’s announcement confirms that there are still plans for the legislation to go ahead. Steven Cameron - Pensions Director with Aegon - stated “The government did indicate back in 2014 its intention to do this, but didn’t include provisions in legislation, leading to uncertainty over whether the change was still planned.”

Presently, savers who have a personal pension, either privately or through their employer, can access their money at 55. Accessing before this time can be done but the tax penalties can be as much as 55%. The increase in pension freedom age to 57 is designed to keep it ten years below the state pension age, which increases to age 67 by 2028. This means that anyone currently 47 or under will have to wait an extra two years before they access their pension savings from previous jobs.

Commenting on the confirmation, Steven Cameron said that it would be “particularly impactful” for those who turn 55 years old just after the cut-off point. He added:

“It is now imperative that both government and industry make sure this change is clear to all those saving in pensions.”

He continued:

“We cannot afford a repeat of the government communication gaps which left many women to find out too late that their state pension age was increasing from 60 to 65.”
Helen Morrissey, Pensions Specialist at Royal London agreed with the sentiment, stating:

"While raising the age by which people can access their private pension may seem sensible the government needs to learn the lessons from the WASPI women and make sure people are given adequate notice and information to prepare for any change."

Additionally, the age at which the state pension applies is rising and will increase between 2044 and 2046 to 68 years. As the private pension access age was designed to fall ten years before state pension age, there is a distinct possibility that further increases could be brought in.

In a survey by Cushon and conducted amongst 3,000 adults in the UK, 77.5 per cent stated that the recent pandemic has shown them the importance of having savings to fall back on. 

In addition, 73 per cent of those surveyed said that as well as having a pension and saving for the future, it was essential to have savings that are easily accessible.  Amongst other things, the coronavirus pandemic has shown that having financial resilience - planning ahead and having a buffer for any potential bumps in the road - is absolutely crucial.

Despite the easing of restrictions and a sense of normality returning, for many workers the financial impact of the coronavirus pandemic is likely to produce a long term financial blow.

Research from the Mental Health Foundation agrees with the survey results, stating that more than a third of UK adults in full time work are concerned about losing their jobs as a result of the pandemic and more than a third of those surveyed said they were worried about their finances - such as bill payments and debts.

In the 2019 ‘Realigning the workplace offering to meet the needs of millennials’ research it was found that 88 per cent of employers felt responsible for their team’s financial wellbeing – and in the latest financial resilience research, it was found that 90 per cent of employers felt that financial worries impacted negatively on their employee’s mental health, whilst 87 per cent of those surveyed said that they had witnessed an adverse effect on the employees’ performance – showing that it is in the employer’s best interest to help its workforce to achieve financial stability.

With 92 per cent of employers now offering to consider setting up a workplace savings scheme to help foster better savings habits, over 57 per cent of employees said if their employer had set up a workplace savings scheme during the coronavirus crisis - which they could pay into directly from their salary and they could afford it - they would take up the offer.

Steve Watson - Head of Proposition, Cushon - said:

“Financial worries are widespread and there is so much uncertainty for many of us right now. Providing a workplace savings initiative, where employees can contribute directly from their pay packet is a great way for businesses to support financial wellbeing and help employees become more financially resilient. During the coronavirus lockdown many traditional perks such as gym memberships and season ticket loans have become redundant, so companies have had to think creatively about more relevant initiatives to offer their employees. We’ve seen a steady increase in companies offering workplace savings initiatives over the last couple of years as financial wellbeing has crept up the corporate agenda. But the pandemic has definitely amplified the need and as our research shows, employers are stepping up to the plate and looking to put something in place. Workplace savings schemes are the best way to engage employees of all ages and encourage them to save for short and long-term priorities, and employers are recognising this.”

According to a survey of 2,000 UK business leaders - by employment law advice firm BrightHR - 43 per cent of UK business owners are not confident that they could make redundancies according to the law.

The latest Labour Market Outlook states that a third of UK organisations are expected to cut jobs in the next quarter of 2020 - and two in five business leaders are worried about making redundancies over the next 12 months - as the smallest mistake could see them facing employment tribunals and hefty legal penalties.

The survey of small business owners also found that 51 per cent of employers are unclear as to the redundancy process that should be followed during or after furlough. The business leaders feel confused about whether redundancy pay is based on employees’ normal wages or their furlough rate of pay.

Whilst accepting that redundancies will be an unfortunate necessity for many companies over the next year - as a result of the coronavirus pandemic - BrightHR advise firms that they should explore every other option first.

Alan Price - CEO of BrightHR and Employment Law Expert - stated:

“With the UK Government’s Job Retention Scheme winding down and many businesses having to let staff go to cope with changing levels of demand, redundancies are currently an unfortunate necessity for many companies.

But you need to explore every other option first. Because if the worst happens and an employee takes you to a tribunal, a judge will expect to see a firm business case for why you had no choice but to make a role redundant. The tribunal will also want to see that you’ve followed the correct redundancy process. Failure to do so could lead to you making a big pay out to your former employee.”

He added:

“None of this is easy. Contract changes and redundancies are among the most complicated areas of employment law. Therefore, it’s essential that employers either understand the redundancy process or they have the relevant tools and people to assist them with making the right decisions in line with the law”

City centres are being warned by business groups that they could become ‘ghost towns’ as the YouGov survey of over 2,500 British adults found that just 31 per cent thought that home working staff should be encouraged to return to the office.

In comparison, 41 per cent of the respondents said that workers should not be encouraged to return and 22 per were unsure.

The poll found a variation amongst the different age groups, with 54 per cent of the 18 to 24 year olds saying that workers should not be encouraged to return to the work place, compared to only 26 per cent who thought that they should. 

Amongst the 25 to 49 year olds, 52 per cent said that workers should not be encouraged to return to the workplace – whilst just 25 per cent said that they should. Of the 50 to 64 year olds, 45 per cent said employees should not be encouraged back to the office against 32 per cent saying they should return.

Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry - Dame Carolyn Fairbairn - writing for the Daily Mail, urged UK businesses to bring staff back stating that the UK’s offices are vital drivers of the economy. She wrote:

“The costs of office closure are becoming clearer by the day. Some of our busiest city centres resemble ghost towns, missing the usual bustle of passing trade. This comes at a high price for local businesses, jobs and communities.      Remote working has been a resounding success for many firms and employees, and none of these benefits should be lost. Many people have never worked harder, keeping businesses afloat from their desks and kitchen tables. Flexible working is here to stay and needs to remain an option for many. But there are serious downsides too.”

She added:

“For young people, learning face-to-face in the workplace is an unbeatable way to build skills and confidence.  We must not deprive the next generation of this opportunity.  Not everyone has the space to work effectively at home – an ironing board in the bedroom does not make a great workspace. And the mental health challenges triggered by isolation are all too real for many.”

However, Health Secretary Matt Hancock - speaking on Times Radio - said:

“What I care about is how effectively people work and obviously people should come back to the office if that is what they need to do their job.”

He stated that it was up to employers to make sure their workplaces were Covid secure – something he said his department had done – but went on to say:

“What I care about is that people perform and so the people I work with, some of them have been working from home, some come in sometimes, some are in full-time, and what matters to me is that they deliver and, frankly, they’ve been delivering at an unbelievable rate.”

Dame Carolyn Fairbairn urgently requested mass widespread testing including in the workplace to help people feel confident and safe and stating that more flexible working is indisputably a good thing for the economy and quality of life, but there must be a balance.  She wrote:

“It’s time for the UK to bring its workplaces back to life, or we will look back with regret at the jobs lost, training missed, and communities harmed.”

According to a report from Culture Shift - a UK-based tech-for-good developer - the events of recent months have impacted positively on the culture of the UK’s industry. 

Of the respondents surveyed, 39 per cent said it has actively improved since they changed to remote working, with 73 per cent describing it as positive in the current climate.

The same report also revealed that more than 36 per cent said working from home has boosted their productivity, whilst more than 28 per cent said it has had a positive impact on their mental health - with 45 per cent saying they are dreading going back to the workplace.

However, whilst many have welcomed the remote arrangement, 50 per cent of employees in tech have said that working from home has made them feel isolated. 

Olive Strachan MBE, who is founder of Olive Strachan Resources Ltd and a global business woman and diversity and inclusion specialist - stated:

“There’s no doubt the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in challenging times for businesses. With many teams working remotely, organisations have had to improve their communication keeping employees informed of developments, while demonstrating empathy, and providing coaching plus support for their mental health and general wellbeing.”

She continued:

“The research found that most employees have credited their organisations with having a positive culture in the current climate, with many benefitting from improvements to their productivity, overall wellbeing, creativity, work-life balance and relationships with key stakeholders, such as their employer.”

On the positive impact of working from home, the research found that 51 per cent of employees in tech confirmed working from home has improved their work-life balance - and 43 per cent who said that they feel more likely to experience bullying in the workplace, became just 30 per cent whilst working from home.

Job motivation has been positively impacted by working remotely whilst 26 per cent receive less passive aggressive comments when not in the workplace.

More than one third of employees say that creativity has improved for them, with 37 per cent stating that trust in their boss has had a positive influence; 43 per cent said that their boss has asked about their wellbeing more often since they started working from home and almost half feel that they are being trusted to get on with the job. 

On the negative side, self-doubt is rife with 27 per cent feeling this more so whilst working from home, particularly 16-34 year-olds, where 31 per cent feel it more than when they were in the workplace.

Almost half of employees feel isolated; 23 per cent feel they have been affected negatively when it comes to promotion opportunities and 25 per cent say that it has affected their training and development.

Gemma McCall - CEO and co-founder of Culture Shift - said:

“With many organisations across the country now thinking about how they can bring employees back to the office safely, we wanted to hone in on the general consensus on remote working these past few months. While there have been some minor issues, it’s generally been quite successful.”

She added:

“Remote working has positively impacted employees’ wellbeing and is something employers should absolutely be considering as they plan for the future — especially now the success of this approach has been clearly proven. While there are of course some key factors organisations need to work on, like continued commitment to training and development, as well as progression, employers should be ensuring they have systems and tools in place to empower their teams to remain productive, creative and supported, even while they’re working from home.”

Censuswide survey consultants asked the opinion of 200 UK business decision makers, on behalf of privileged access management solutions provider, Centrify - in order to gather information for a new report regarding cyber security.

According to this report, since the Covid-19 pandemic began, almost four in ten businesses have fired someone over their involvement in a breach of security protocol. This is despite 65 per cent of organisations making considerable changes to their cyber security policy, in response to the pandemic.

Over half - 58 per cent - of companies are of the opinion that employees are more likely to attempt to get round the security practices when working from home.  Because of this, 57 per cent of decision makers are putting more measures in place to validate staff.  Biometric data checks - such as fingerprint and facial recognition technology - are being introduced to ensure that the correct person is accessing the right files, applications and accounts.  This has proved necessary as, due to businesses moving into digital channels en-masse, there have been a rising number of incidents where cybercriminals have been involved.    

In addition, more than half - 55 per cent - of businesses have already banned, or plan to ban, staff from using personal devices to work from home.

Andy Heather - Vice President, Centrify - said:

“With more people than ever working from home and left to their own devices, it’s inevitable that some will find security work ‘arounds’, such as using personal laptops and not changing passwords, in order to maximise productivity. It’s also possible that the changes in security procedures are not being communicated well to employees, and many are practicing unsafe internet usage without even realising.

The reality is the weakest link in any organisation continues to be the human element. Combating this issue starts from the top. CIOs and business decision makers must implement strict and transparent, cloud enabled and identity-centric security solutions. This will allow companies to quickly and safely deploy scalable security privileged access management measures, which make it impossible for an employee to access company networks, applications and data, unless they are following correct procedures.”

A poll in early June, by Royal London, suggests that young workers are opting out of pensions because of the Covid 19 crisis.

The poll, which surveyed 2,000 people aged between 18 and 34 years of age, found that a large percentage of employees are either reducing or stopping contributions - and it cautions that this could cause long term damage to retirement prospects.

The research found that 28 per cent of those aged between 18 and 34 years had reduced their pension contributions - with a further 12 per cent stopping their contributions altogether.  However, only 16 per cent of those in the age group 35 to 53 years had stopped or reduced their contributions. Of the 40 per cent who had reduced or ended their contributions, the main reasons given were pay cuts; redundancy and worries over job security.

Other reasons for reducing or stopping pension contributions included concern over an unstable investment market; that they had more important priorities or that they had left their employer.

Of the over 55 year olds only 9 per cent have either halted or cut pension their contributions.

It was suggested that those who stopped saving into a pension because of redundancy might be more likely to pick it up again later as they will be auto enrolled when they find a new job.  However, people who simply cut back might not have the impetus to resume saving.

Lorna Blyth - Head of Investment Solutions at Royal London - stated that employees were taking this step to compensate for lost income caused by the virus outbreak.   

She said:

“The Covid pandemic has put a real strain on many people’s finances and the research shows many are looking to reduce their outgoings by cutting or even stopping contributions.”

Only 11 per cent of those surveyed stated that they had begun to make contributions for the first time - or had increased them during the lockdown.

However, 79 per cent said that they planned to resume - or increase - their contributions at some future point, with 37 per cent saying that they planned to do so in the next three months.

Lorna Blyth stated:

“It is vital that people follow through with their intentions to resume contributions as soon as they are able if they are to avoid long-term damage to their retirement prospects.”

A survey, by the CIPD and the Adecco Group, of more than 2,000 employers has found that overall hiring of new staff has increased, with 49 per cent of employers expecting to take on new recruits in the next three months - compared to 40 per cent last quarter. However, this is still well below levels seen in previous years.

The report’s net employment balance - which measures the difference between the proportion of employers who expect to increase staff levels and those who expect to decrease staff levels - has fallen from –4 to –8 over the last three months showing the lowest figure since February 2013.  

According to the latest quarterly Labour Market Outlook report, a 50 per cent increase in the number of businesses expecting to cut jobs compared to the spring report is cited. This rose from 22 per cent three months ago to 33 per cent in the latest report.

In the private sector, 38 per cent expect to make redundancies, as opposed to 16 per cent in the public sector.

The survey also shows that employers across all sectors intend to rein in pay increases over the next 12 months and those who do plan pay reviews expect the basic pay to increase by just 1 per cent - much lower than the 2 per cent median increase expected this time last year. In the private sector, median basic pay expectations have increased to 0.8 per cent from 0 per cent three months ago but whilst this is a modest rise in pay expectations in the private sector, improvement is hindered by a relatively large proportion of employers - 40 per cent - predicting the introduction of wage freezes in the 12 months to June 2021.  

Gerwyn Davies - Senior Labour Market Adviser at the CIPD - the professional body for HR and people development, commented:

“This is the weakest set of data we’ve seen for several years. Until now, redundancies have been low – no doubt due to the Job Retention Scheme – but we expect to see more redundancies come through this autumn, especially in the private sector once the scheme closes. Hiring confidence is rising tentatively, but this probably won’t be enough to offset the rise in redundancies and the number of new graduates and school leavers entering the labour market over the next few months. As a result, this looks set to be a sombre autumn for jobs. This will likely be accompanied by a pay squeeze for workers, which is actually to be welcomed to help preserve jobs despite any modest fall in real wages in the private sector. This could be an important factor in limiting large-scale job cuts, as it was in the last recession. We urge organisations to do all that they can to keep employees in work and only make redundancies as a last resort, exploring all other options first. This could include freezing recruitment, reducing hours or restricting overtime, or cuts to bonuses and deferring salary increases.”

Alex Fleming - Country Head and President of Staffing and Solutions, the Adecco Group UK and Ireland - stated:

“This latest report shows a mixed picture with regards to the status of the current labour market. Redundancy intentions have increased by 11 per cent compared to the previous quarter but, more positively, nearly half (49 per cent) of UK employers are planning to recruit over the next three months, which could be an indication that businesses are reshaping for the future. We’re also seeing more candidates applying for high skilled roles, which aligns with the trend of people sourcing alternate forms of education in order to upskill and expand their knowledge, during this time of uncertainty. As organisations continue transitioning into the new era of work, there will be ongoing shifts in working patterns not only for employees but also for those who are just starting out in their career. Therefore, businesses must demonstrate resilience and adopt new approaches to closing the skills gap by investing in upskilling and reskilling workforces. Creating a positive workplace culture is also integral to maintaining focus, engagement and motivation among existing employees.”

The HR body - CIPD - has warned that more consultation by employers is needed to ensure that workers feel safe and confident to return to the workplace.  

In July, employers were advised to encourage workers to return to the workplace - if it was safe to do so - and from 1st August the responsibility to determine whether home workers should return to their place of work became the employers.

A CIPD survey of more than 1,000 working adults in the UK indicates that there are employers who are not meeting three important criteria, i.e. whether it is essential to be at work; whether it is safe to be at work and whether it has been agreed with the worker.

The survey found a disturbing lack of consultation with the workers whose concerns about health and safety have not been addressed - only 44 per cent surveyed felt that they had been adequately consulted, whilst 55 per cent stated that they have received adequate information about the return to work, rather than consulted.  Only 28 per cent of workers with a disability felt that their concerns had been addressed.

Of the workers already going to the workplace, 26 per cent stated that they are being pressurised to do so and one in five were not satisfied with the health and safety measures their employer had put in place during the pandemic. A further three in ten said they felt anxious about catching or spreading the virus and of those not yet back in the workplace 12 per cent did not trust their employer to provide a safe environment.

More than half of the workers surveyed stated that they were looking forward to returning to their normal workplace - in contrast, 24 per cent disagreed, whilst 45 per cent said they felt anxious about returning. This rose to 57 per cent where the workers had a mental health condition and to 48 per cent where people had a physical health condition.

More than a third of workers were concerned about commuting to work with the number rising to 60 per cent in London.

Melanie Green - Research Advisor at the CIPD - stated:

“Workplaces should only be opening up if it’s essential to the business model, it’s mutually agreed with staff and it’s safe to do so. But our research suggests many employers are failing to meet these three tests. 

Employers must ensure they’ve taken all necessary steps to protect their staff against the virus and must not get complacent here. The rise in workplace transmissions over the last few weeks shows how vigilant employers need to be and the level of responsibility on their shoulders. 

Our research also raises serious concerns about the impact of the pandemic on people’s mental wellbeing. While some employees may be looking forward to returning to their normal place of work, perhaps because isolation and lack of social connections are taking a toll on their mental health, others are anxious about how safe it is to do so.  Some employees’ personal circumstances – whether that is an existing health condition or juggling childcare and work – may also create extra anxiety about returning to work. Employers shouldn’t make assumptions about what’s right for their people.

Greater consultation with staff will help employers to understand people’s concerns, what they can do to put them at greater ease and how they can make the return to work safer and less stressful. People are much more likely to agree to a return to work if they’ve had the opportunity to voice their concerns and work through solutions with their employer.”  

A third of workers want a Covid-19 vaccine or antibody test before returning to the office.  This is according to a new poll of 2,000 workers conducted by Canada Life.

Despite 41 per cent of workers feeling positive about returning to the office, 28 per cent are concerned and this number increases to 36 per cent amongst women.  Nearly a fifth of employees are of the opinion that it will be several years before working practices return to normal.

The poll showed that 18 per cent of respondents wanted regular temperature checks; 21 per cent wanted coronavirus testing in the office and 22 per cent wanted office spaces to be rearranged to accommodate social distancing.

Although 26 per cent of women are most looking forward to being out of the house again - against 18 per cent of men - women are more concerned about office working than male workers.   The female workers - 26 per cent - were more worried about their colleagues not taking the same precautions as themselves and 23 per cent of women were anxious about physically interacting with people again.

The poll found that 31 per cent of employees wanted the option to work from home in the future - as and when it suited them - whilst 23 per cent wanted to be able decide whether or not they returned to the office at all.

Paul Avis - Strategic Proposition Director at Canada Life - said:

 “Workers are unsurprisingly anxious about returning to the physical workplace. After such a long period of time working from home, many of us have developed new ways of working and fallen into new routines. And while lots of workers are looking forward to getting ‘back to normal’, many feel like the ‘new normal’ will never be the same as it once was. With the pandemic changing the way we’ve lived our lives over the past four months, I’m not surprised that some are understandably hoping for a vaccine or antibody testing before they get back into the workplace. But as anyone who may have spent the last few months working from a single bedroom flat will testify, a return to the workplace will come as a welcome relief alongside all the social benefits that brings. Concerns have been raised by psychiatrists that we face a tsunami of mental health issues and so a return to the workplace, noting work has been proven to be beneficial for mental health, will be welcomed by many who rely on the challenges of daily work and the social and support networks.”

It has been found that 35 per cent of employees search for a new role whilst at work due to the boredom they feel the job brings.

The Candidate Behaviour Barometer - from the UK’s leading independent job board, CV-Library - have carried out a new study which shows that Monday is the busiest day for job hunting, with 11am the most popular time for making job applications.

The job board evaluated millions of data points from its site to understand the most popular times and days of the week for job views and applications. It surveyed 1,700 UK professionals to understand how people balance their search for another job with their existing role. 

Firstly, the survey found that job adverts got 17.2 per cent of views on Wednesdays; 16.5 per cent of views on Tuesdays and 16.3 per cent of views on Mondays.  Sunday is the least popular day with 10.2 per cent of views.

When it comes to the most popular time for candidates to view jobs, it was found to be 10am and 11am with 7.6 per cent of views; second was 9am and 10am with 7.3 per cent of views and the least popular time to view - at 0.6 per cent - was between 4am and 5am.

The most unlikely times for job applications to be made are Saturday and Sunday, each showing 9 per cent - indicating that most people like to search for jobs whilst working at their current role. Over half state that they search for jobs when they are meant to be working - with 58 per cent saying they do not feel guilty about this.

Nearly two-thirds - 62 per cent - of employees who have been working remotely during the coronavirus pandemic have been looking for a new role and 80 per cent admitted it has been easier to search for a new job whilst they have been away from the workplace.

Lee Biggins - Founder and CEO of CV-Library - commented:

“Employers and recruiters that are continuing to hire during the pandemic are in a fortunate position, as there are more active job hunters on the market right now. But, while the job market has shifted, understanding how candidates behave will always be important. Our latest report provides some fantastic insights that can help you streamline your hiring process; and ultimately speed up your time to hire, while reducing costs.”

He added:

“We might be in the middle of a pandemic, but that isn’t stopping people from searching and applying to new jobs. Definitely make the most of this active talent pool if you can, but have a think about the best times to advertise your jobs and what you should be including in them to make them as appealing as possible.”

Julie Delve and Karen Glynn - supported by the campaign group ‘Backto60’ - last week took their case concerning pension age equalisation to the Court of Appeal.

Plans to increase the state pension age were first announced in the Pension Act 1995 but these changes were accelerated as part of the Pension Act 2011.

The changes meant that in 2010 the age at which women qualified for a State Pension began to increase - from aged 60 to 65 - to bring them in line with the age at which men receive their pension. A group of women born in the 1950s argued that these changes were made unfairly, as they were not given sufficient notice to add to their savings to make up the shortfall in state pension. The changes under both acts are thought to affect approximately 3.8 million women.

In 2019, Julie Delve and Karen Glynn took the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to court, claiming that the changes were discriminatory on the grounds of sex and age. However the women lost this hearing, with the High Court ruling that there was no direct discrimination on grounds of sex, because “this legislation does not treat women less favourably than men in law, rather it equalises a historic asymmetry between men and women, and thereby corrects historic direct discrimination against men”.

Undeterred, Julie Delve and Karen Glynn’s appeal was eventually heard in a two day case at the Court of Appeal last week - in which the verdict is yet to be announced. As the judiciary has now broken for its summer recess, this is likely to be after October 1 when they reconvene.

On the first day of the hearing, Michael Mansfield QC for the Backto60 campaign, described the poverty and financial hardship faced by many women affected by the changes.

He stated:

“This cohort are bearing the brunt and shouldering the onerous situations that arise after the statutes come into force.”

He added:

“Besides the economic - almost poverty line - existence they have to face, it goes without saying that the psychological and mental stress placed upon them, has reduced many people to an inability to go and do what they need to do to make ends meet.”

The DWP continue to maintain that the changes were necessary, with representative Sir James Eadie QC, remarking that pensions must be economically viable. If the women win their case and are awarded full restitution, it is thought it could cost the taxpayer in the region of £215billion.

In the meantime the State Pension age continues to increase, with a scheduled to rise to 66 by October 2020 - then to age 67 between 2026 and 2028.

Sometime between 2037 and 2039 - on a date yet to be decided - the age of eligibility for State Pension will then rise to 68.

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

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

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

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

Peter Cheese - Chief Executive of the CIPD - said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matt Stephens stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

She said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He added:

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

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

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

He stated:

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

Luke Murphy - IPPR Associate Director - said:

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

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

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

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

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

JC Townend - CEO of LHH - said:

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

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

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

According to a poll of 2,000 employees currently on the furlough scheme - carried out across the UK - over a third of them have been asked to undertake work by their bosses. This is in spite of the strict rules stating that employers are only entitled to claim money from the £60bn furlough scheme if staff cannot work during the pandemic. The job retention scheme is one of the biggest costs to the Treasury and any breaking of the rules is fraud.

The study - which was carried out by Crossland Employment Solicitors and surveyed staff from manufacturing, IT, marketing and PR companies - found that the comparison between large and small firms was fairly equal. 

It showed that 34 per cent of employees were asked to return to work either to do their usual job or to take on administrative tasks - with a further 18 per cent saying they had been asked to work for another company linked to their employer and 19 per cent were asked to cover another person’s job, within their organisation.

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

"Like any fraud, this is a serious offence and an exploitation of employees.

As it is fraud on the Treasury then an employer could be imposed with a hefty fine, asked to pay past payments back, have any future payments withheld or even potentially face prison.

Since the coronavirus job retention scheme was launched eight weeks ago, we've received an avalanche of calls to our office from worried employees, all unrelated to our own clients and many with the same story, 'I've been furloughed but my employer has asked me to keep working’.”

She added:

“This is fraud that is impacting many industries, job roles and seniority levels.”

Similar to Crossland Employment Solicitors poll, the charity Protect reported receiving more than 215 calls to its whistle blower advice line, regarding furlough abuse. This accounted for 54 per cent of coronavirus-related calls received, overall.

Andrew Pepper-Parsons - Head of Policy for Protect - remarked that many whistle blowers were concerned they could be held liable for working whilst furloughed.

He stated:

“It is the employer that is committing the fraud and it is the employer that should suffer the penalty, but we are hearing reports that some whistleblowers seeking advice are being told they will be liable to pay back money fraudulently claimed.”

He called upon the government to assure those employees that they would not be required to make repayment.

However, Stuart Price - Payroll Expert at MHR - said that changes to legislation had required employers to react quickly; meaning accidental abuse of the scheme was understandable in some instances.

He said:

"Traditionally, when you've got new legislation, you've got a year's lead time to prepare because the government has had time to give great detail.  But because the rules can vary month to month, it has been difficult for businesses to keep up. You're being asked for information or checks where you might not even have needed that data before.”

According to a new report - Learning and Skills at Work 2020 - from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) and Accenture, two out of three businesses have no clear training plans for their employees.

The CIPD and Accenture - a multinational professional services company - surveyed more than 1,200 employers and found that only 29 per cent of organisations claim to have clear learning and development plans for their employees.

One in five organisations fails to use any technology to support learning activities and many tend to rely on classroom-based training. The report goes on to state that skills development is being frustrated by the pressures of the coronavirus pandemic and calls for organisations to use digital learning methods, especially as skills development is being highlighted by the pressures of the coronavirus crisis.

Nearly 80% of employers have taken up learning technologies, with leaders showing signs of growth in digital learning, but barriers still persist - with only a minority of organisations adopting augmented reality, virtual reality and mobile applications.

The report showed that many in-house learning and development roles are dominated by face-to-face trainers - digital asset creators/curator researchers are rare and the majority of employers lack the skills needed to deliver training.

A link between learning and productivity was also suggested - of those with above-average productivity, 84 per cent said that their learning strategy is connected to business needs, compared to only 43 per cent of those with below average productivity.

Peter Cheese - Chief Executive of the CIPD, the professional body for HR and people development – said:

“Learning has never been more important for business, the UK and working lives – we needed it before COVID-19 and we need it even more now. Yet this report highlights the gap between companies who know this, following through with strategic investment, professional practice, new technologies and time to learn – versus those who know the importance, but allow it to be the first thing cut from the budget. Within the report, there are some incredibly innovative examples of learning, which are developing new skills, behaviours and performance – at times like these we need these examples to be more commonplace.” 

Andy Young - Managing Director of Talent & Organization at Accenture - said: 

“Technology was already disrupting the world of work, and now with most of the workforce going virtual, the pandemic is accelerating the need to harness human and digital skills. While digital learning is commonplace in our personal lives, our report shows that many UK organisations have not invested in this as a competitive advantage, risking significant skills gaps. With new solutions such as virtual and augmented reality that simulate difficult situations, gaming technology, and films to encourage decision making and new behaviours, employers can revolutionise their training plans at a time when their people need it the most. The good news is that some leading UK organisations are getting learning right and seeing productivity gains as a result.” 

New research from Personio - the all-in-one HR software solution - finds that HR teams are keen to maintain a more influential and strategic role in the future.

The research surveyed 500 HR managers across the UK, with 51 per cent of respondents stating that the HR function cannot continue as prior to the pandemic. Eight out of ten of those surveyed declared that HR has been vital in helping the business successfully adapt to the new normal, with 91 per cent rating the HR function as good or very good.

Altogether, 71 per cent of those surveyed believe that HR has added tactical value to the business during the outbreak and 71 per cent also agreed that the HR function has been more closely involved at board and senior team level.

According to the research, 80 per cent of HR managers want HR to maintain the strategic role it played during the pandemic - with 33 per cent believing that the HR function should become more strategic and flexible in future.

However, 49 per cent of HR managers surveyed say that they do not have the HR tools and systems in place to be properly effective; 71 per cent say that they have difficulty accessing data or analytics, 42 per cent state they lacked the data and tools required to support the business efficiently and under 46 per cent have a specific recovery plan in place. This leaves question marks over the ability of HR to truly evolve and retain its more strategic partnership role in the long term.

It was indicated by 63 per cent of respondents that HR processes and systems carried out fully digitally helped HR teams to work more effectively and they cited the HR functions response as ‘very good’ during the pandemic – with 55 per cent more likely to have a recovery plan in place.   This compared with 41 per cent who cited ‘mostly’ digital and 48 per cent who had ‘few’ digital systems, with only 34 per cent of those stating they had a recovery plan.

The top steps that have been implemented by HR in the UK are 66 per cent support for remote working; 53 per cent increased internal communication; 44 per cent implemented additional health and wellbeing initiatives and 37 per cent provided support for parents.

Hanno Renner - co-founder and CEO of Personio - said:

“HR is a company’s backbone, and this is never truer than during challenging times like these. The Covid-19 crisis has given HR teams a unique opportunity to demonstrate what they’re best at – helping businesses make strategic decisions when it comes to their greatest asset: people. HR teams will be critical to supporting individuals’ and businesses’ return to workplaces and navigating the challenging time after the lockdown. But this more strategic HR role can only be achieved when organisations have the technology, data and systems in place that free HR managers up to focus on their people while providing them with the insights they need to be effective. Organisations must act now to ensure the HR function can continue to operate strategically in the post-pandemic workplace. Budgets may be under threat, but people strategy is one area that absolutely must remain a focus for businesses as we adapt to new ways of working.”

According to a poll of HR professionals it was found that only 4 per cent of employers have returned staff to a place of work following the relaxation of lockdown rules.    

The Prime Minister - Boris Johnson - had asked employees who were unable to work from home, to return to their workplaces. However, People Management readers found that employees were still being asked to work from home and that did not appear to be likely to change for the foreseeable future.

Various reasons were given by those polled - 24 per cent said they were waiting for the government to give specific guidance for their sector before returning staff to the workplace - as 38 per cent of the HR professionals had found the advice they had received not very or not at all helpful and 55 per cent expected that their staff would to continue to work from home for some time. However, 62 per cent had found the government’s sector-specific advice on returning to work very or quite helpful.

Some 17 per cent of respondents said that their staff had worked right through the lockdown.

However, Martin Tiplady - Managing Director of Chameleon People Solutions - was of the opinion that employers should be able to work out the specific measures that would be appropriate in their circumstances.

He said:

“I’m not the sort of individual who feels that every twist and turn should be covered by guidance; it’s got to allow interpretation and some wiggle room for people to use common sense.”

He added:

“I have talked to employers where they are looking for literally every turn to be expressed in a guidance note – but nobody’s been there, why would you want that? The guidance is fine but people have now got to use pragmatism about how best to apply it.”

Of the measures that the guidance recommended, 67 per cent of respondents stated that they were altering their workplace layouts to support social distancing; 54 per cent said they were staggering the shifts to reduce employees contact; 53 per cent said that they were planning to hold fewer and shorter meetings and 49 per cent were staggering break times.

Back-to-back or side-to-side rather than face-to-face working was one of the more controversial recommendations in the guidance for when social distancing - as keeping two metres apart could be impossible in a workplace. Only 19 per cent of respondents stated that they were introducing temperature checking of employees at their entrances, with only 6 per cent stating that they would be regularly testing the staff for the virus.

A major debate, when restrictions were first eased, was about how the staff could safely commute to work. The majority of employers - 66 per cent - reported having conversations about this with employees before asking them to return.

One of the recommendations in the guidance to help employees avoid peak commuting times was to stagger start and finish times and 59 per cent of respondents said they were introducing this.

Just under half - 47 per cent of those polled - said they were asking employees to walk or cycle more to work; 33 per cent said they were promoting cycle to work schemes more heavily, but only 6 per cent had offered to pay for taxis.

According to a CIPD survey, over the past two years the proportion of people who feel that work has impacted positively on their mental health, has fallen. One in four workers reported intense and stressful working conditions - such as feeling exhausted, miserable or stressed. The coronavirus outbreak has led to further concerns about the impact the virus will have on staff wellbeing.

In the Good Work Index report it was found that the number of people stating that work had a positive affect on their mental health dropped 9 percent over the last two years, going from 44 per cent to 35 per cent.

Jonny Gifford - Senior Research Adviser at the CIPD - remarked that even before the coronavirus outbreak, work was becoming worse for mental health.

He stated:

“As the full scale of the economic crisis unfolds, the outlook looks even bleaker. We’ll likely see employers trying to do more with less, which will only increase people’s workload and the pressure they are already under. Many people will also be worried about losing their job or living on a reduced income.” 

The CIPD and YouGov polled 6,681 workers in January of this year, finding that 32 per cent said that their workload was too great in a normal week and 24 per cent said that their personal time was not relaxing because of work. In the last year, 69 per cent said their work was contributing to the anxiety they were experiencing and 58 per cent said the same was true for their depression.

A further survey of 1,001 workers conducted in April and May of this year showed that the pandemic was heightening the employees’ issues. Of those with a mental health condition, 43 per cent say the pandemic has contributed to or worsened it.

However, 73 per cent feel their work is meaningful for their organisation - but 11 per cent lack the skills they need for their job and 37 per cent have underused skills.

Jonny Gifford said:

“While the government is right to focus on protecting as many jobs as possible, it should also be encouraging employers to look at job quality. Not only is there a moral imperative to do so, but if people are happy and healthy in their jobs they also perform better, take less time off and are less likely to drop out of the workforce. In the long run, this will help us get on the road to economic recovery sooner.”

Kelly Feehan - Service Director at wellbeing charity CABA - advised:

“If you haven’t done so already, you should look to produce a mental health at work plan or strategy, which you implement and communicate at all levels of the business. Check in with your staff at regular intervals as personal circumstances can quickly change. This will allow you to identify any issues at an early stage and make any adjustments where necessary.”

She added:

“Companies and employers that actively promote mental health in the workplace are far more likely to have a happier and more productive workforce. Employees will feel more supported to do their job, and are therefore less likely to take sick days or look elsewhere for another role.”

The CIPD and Workday latest annual People Profession Survey has been released – showing that there are plenty of ‘positives’ reported by those who work in the people profession.

Of those surveyed, 80 per cent state that it offers them a meaningful career and 73 per cent believe they have the opportunity to add value to their organisation, showing that the majority find enjoyment in their work.

YouGov surveyed 1,368 in-house people professionals of which 60 per cent said that they look forward to going into work most days; 73 per cent said that the profession offers good career prospects and 65 per cent said that the profession offers good earning potential.    

Areas where the profession can improve - particularly around people analytics and data skills - were highlighted. To help make business decisions, only 6 per cent use advanced analytical techniques, as opposed to 37 per cent collecting and using very basic HR data.

The CIPD carried out a separate poll in April - to discover the impact of the coronavirus on people professionals. It was found that 57 per cent of people professionals recognised that their people team are supporting line managers through the crisis - but only 41 per cent of all business leaders agreed with this. More than a third - 37 per cent - say that a key business challenge is helping people to manage the impact of home working on their mental health.  

The report also explored the change or improvement that people professionals would most like to see in HR capability. It was found that 32 per cent would like to see coaching of line managers; 26 per cent would like OD and management skills to be addressed and 25 per cent would like relationships with colleagues and understanding their priorities to be built. 

Peter Gamble - Regional Vice President at Workday, UK and Ireland - said:

“It has been a challenging year but one that has highlighted the importance of the people profession. Amidst uncertainty, people leaders have had to make confident decisions about the best way forward for their organisation and their workforce. In a fast-changing environment, leaders have had to help people stay informed, engaged and supported while adopting what have been entirely new ways of working for many. Responding to change quickly and effectively has been key. Businesses must strive to build a culture of agility, data-driven decision-making and automation to fuel the recovery from the effects of this year and to drive innovation in the future.”

Peter Cheese - Chief Executive of the CIPD - stated:

“There are plenty of positives to take away in the latest People Profession Survey. It’s good to see that so many people professionals get meaning and value from their careers, which is likely to be reflected back in them showing strong commitment and engagement. The demands placed on the people profession over the last few months have never been greater with the Covid-19 pandemic, and we have seen so many positive examples of how individuals and teams have risen to the challenge. It’s particularly encouraging to see the focus on supporting line managers, many of whom are now having to manage teams remotely for the first time and support workers through these anxious and uncertain times. However, there is always scope for development and, once again, the report highlights the need for people professionals to improve their analytics capabilities. The crisis has put people much more at the heart of business thinking everywhere, but we need to show we can engage with business leaders at all levels with clear and actionable insights to drive positive change. This will be even more important as businesses look to drive performance and productivity as they chart their way through more challenging and uncertain economic times, and must balance financial, legal and ethical perspectives in the decisions that impact their workforces.  People professionals will continue to face many demanding months ahead as we slowly come out the lockdown and the full impact this crisis has had on the economy is laid bare. We will be here to support them through it all.”  

In recent research conducted on 2,000 home working employees by full-service IT support company ILUX, it was found that one in ten believed that their expected working practices are not GDPR compliant. In addition, 13 per cent of those surveyed admitted that they are using their own home technology for work – and this could be the reason for the concern over GDPR compliance.

GDPR - or General Data Protection Regulation - was introduced in May 2018 and applies to all UK-based businesses or organisations and their processing of personal data. It was introduced to strengthen data protection for individuals across the EU.

All UK organisations that process personal data must comply with the regulations or risk significant penalties, which can amount to up to 4 per cent of the company’s annual turnover.

Based on the results of the poll, the report generated hints that the adoption of BYOD, (bring your own device) policy could be at the root of the problem, stating that home workers using personal technology for work could be the catalyst for the respondents’ concerns.

BYOD policy is a set of rules governing a corporate IT department’s level of support for employee-owned PCs, smart phones and tablets.

Additionally, support was also found to be an issue, with two-thirds of the poll respondents stating that they did not receive enough support regarding IT from business owners, with 10 per cent feeling that management was either too busy or too stressed to approach them.

James Tilbury - Managing Director at ILUX - stated:

“Asking employees to work from home and then not providing the right computer systems and security measures is a recipe for disaster. The last thing any business needs at this time is to lose valuable data, leave themselves open to cyber attacks or phishing and leave themselves vulnerable to the unknown. It may only seem like a small number, but it’s best not to be in that ten per cent.”

He added:

“Nine in ten is a positive figure, better than would be expected, but as a business owner I would be starting to ask myself - did I plan enough for home working? - and get some advice from an industry professional on how I might rectify any GDPR issues in my business now - better to be proactive than reactive in these situations.”

A survey conducted by O2, ICM and YouGov has predicted that employees will be reluctant to give up working remotely after lockdown. Almost half of the office workers believe that the Covid-19 pandemic will result in them permanently working more flexibly after restrictions on UK businesses are lifted.  

It was found that 33 per cent of respondents expect to work from home for at least three days per week, whilst 81 per cent think they will work remotely for at least one day per week.

The survey also found that technology could be a solution for spanning geographic inequality in the UK - as current lockdown restrictions have affirmed that many employees are able to work from anywhere.

At present, 62 per cent of employees live within 30 minutes of their workplace. However, the poll showed that if working from home was easier and more common, this figure would reduce to 36 per cent with 63 per cent of workers willing to live up to an hour away from their workplace. This should then mean that competition to attract and retain staff could be greater as businesses compete for a wider range of employees from across the country.

Dr Heejung Chung - Reader in Sociology and Social Policy Director at the University of Kent - said:

“It will be difficult to go back to normal ways of working after lockdown, as we’ve now proven that most of us can work from home – despite many companies previously telling employees that it wouldn’t be possible. The UK has a huge challenge with the geographic distribution of wealth, and this exaggerates the problem of overpopulation in cities. If people could work from wherever they want to, without any fear of career penalty, this would create a huge opportunity for everyone.”

Despite 56 per cent of employers stating that less than a tenth of their workforce worked remotely before the crisis, 67 per cent of companies said that 75 per cent of their employees are working remotely - with 87 per cent of those having the technology and resources in place to work productively.

Mark Crail - Content Director for XpertHR - commented that HR assistance had been critical in allowing people to juggle work and family responsibilities. 

He said:

"There is a real sense that people have thrown themselves into the challenge of home working and simply coped with the need to juggle work and childcare, to take part in online meetings despite internet connectivity issues, and to work round problems that arise. HR has played a huge part in making this possible, and has put lots of work into engaging with remote teams, equipping managers to work in new ways, supporting the mental health and wellbeing of those stuck at home, and keeping open the channels of communication."

A separate survey by Willis Towers Watson found that home workers had remained productive despite the challenges. Of the 996 employers surveyed, only 15 per cent said productivity had declined; 27 percent said there had been a small negative impact and another 15 per cent said home working had not impacted staff productivity. Almost all of the employers surveyed stated that they kept up a regular communication with their staff to keep them motivated and 86 per cent said they had measures in place to ensure workers felt supported.

According to a new survey sampling 1,000 adult employees and carried out by YouGov for the CIPD, 44 per cent of employees stated that they felt anxious about returning to their workplace because of the health risks posed by Covid-19 both to them and those close to them - whilst 37 per cent disagreed that they were anxious about returning.  

With regard to commuting to work – in general, 31 per cent were anxious about travelling, against 54 per cent who stated that they were not anxious about the commute.  London based employees had far more concerns about their travel than those in other parts of the UK, with 52 per cent saying they were anxious about commuting to work because of COVID-19.  In addition, their commutes are often longer.

The CIPD called for employers to ensure that all employee concerns are addressed when normal working is resumed – and for the government to recognise legitimate employee concerns in its guidance.  

Peter Cheese - Chief Executive of the CIPD, the professional body for HR and people development - said:

“The Government’s draft employer guidance on working safely during COVID-19 does not sufficiently recognise that many individuals will not feel safe enough to return to the workplace due to concerns for their own safety or others they are close to. Returning should be mutually agreed and employers should go out of their way to ensure individuals’ concerns are addressed. Employers must bring people back gradually, when required, and learn from each person’s experience, building employees’ trust in the business to treat them well. 

The CIPD also wants employers to understand and be prepared that this guidance will really test their legal duty of care to keep workers safe from physical harm and the need to continue to meet individuals’ employment rights. This phase for employers will be unique and more complicated to navigate than lockdown as there will be many judgements to make, all that will need to have people at the centre.” 

Louise Aston - Wellbeing Director at Business in the Community (BTC) - said:

“Although there is widespread unease about relaxation of lockdown - particularly with people who have underlying mental health conditions, including OCD and anxiety, BITC recommends that all employers prepare employees for a healthy return to work, providing confidence and assurance that it’s safe to return.”

Emma Mamo - Head of Workplace Wellbeing at mental health charity Mind - said:

“Employers are understandably keen for more guidance on how exactly to manage employees returning to work and we hope this will be forthcoming.”

Calls by CIPD - the professional body for HR and people development - asking for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak to extend the Job Retention Scheme appeared to have been answered. The Chancellor has now announced an extension - until the end of October - of the furlough scheme currently subsidising the wages of millions.

Presently, at least 6.3 million people are having 80 per cent of their salaries - up to a ceiling of £2,500 - paid by the taxpayer under the furlough system, resulting in a cost of some £8 billion.

Until the end of July, there will be no charge to the employers but from then onwards the Chancellor plans to ask companies to share the cost of the scheme. From the start of August, furloughed workers will be able to return to work part-time with employers being asked to pay a percentage towards the salaries of their furloughed staff. The Chancellor has promised that there will be no 'cliff edge' as he winds down the scheme.  

Mervyn King - former Bank of England Governor - commented to the BBC:

"Keep it at 80 per cent. I don't think it makes sense to regard this as the major cost of the COVID-19 crisis in economic terms."

Matt Hanock - Health Secretary stated:

"We have said that shouldn't be a cliff-edge in the furlough scheme, but at the same time, we do need to try to get the economy back to something more like normal."

Angela Rayner - Deputy Labour leader - wants the scheme to continue at the same level, saying:

"We can't afford not to do it correctly. I think it is really important the Chancellor continues with the good practice of making sure that the furlough scheme is in place and doesn't try and reduce it too soon, because that will cost us in the longer term."

Mike Cherry - National Chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses - said:

“The Job Retention Scheme is a lifeline which has been hugely beneficial in helping small employers keep their staff in work and it’s extension is welcome. Small employers have told us that part-time furloughing will help them recover from this crisis and it is welcome that new flexibility is announced.”

Adam Marshall - BCC Director General - said:

“The extension of the Job Retention Scheme will come as a huge help and a huge relief for businesses across the UK. The Chancellor is once again listening to what we’ve been saying, and the changes planned will help businesses bring their people back to work through the introduction of a part-time furlough scheme. We will engage with the Treasury and HMRC on the detail to ensure that this gives companies the flexibility they need to reopen safely. Over the coming months, the government should continue to listen to business and evolve the scheme in line with what’s happening on the ground. Further support may yet be needed for companies who are unable to operate for an extended period, or those who face reduced capacity or demand due to ongoing restrictions.”

The Law Society has warned that thousands of high street and sole practitioner firms that play a crucial role in providing advice to vulnerable people, may have to shut within six months as a result of the Covid-19 crisis.

New research by the Law Society suggests that cash flow pressures and lower fee income have put at risk more than half of all the legal practices in England and Wales.

In March and April, nearly 8,000 small firms were approached for a survey and 10 per cent of the practices - with a total of 774 respondents - replied. It was   found that one in five said they were already feeling the pressure from lack of cash flow and fee income.

Of the sole practitioners surveyed 63 per cent - and 71 per cent of firms with four partners or fewer - said that the pressures could put them out of business by the autumn. This would equate to over 5,000 firms ceasing to trade, leaving vulnerable people - struggling with stressful legal issues - without support.

Simon Davis - Law Society President - said:

“The shock to the legal services sector has been sudden and severe. There are widespread concerns over liquidity as firms face a dramatic plunge in income with work falling away.

Although a firm may be open for business, this does not mean it is business as usual. Residential property transactions have ground to a halt. Reduction in court hearings has massively impacted on the amount of work available - while social distancing and the lack of face-to-face meetings is causing difficulty delivering in other areas, such as the execution of wills.”

He added:

“The exclusion of many solicitors from support for the self-employed means that many are struggling. Someone who has earned £51,000 profit in the preceding year is not guaranteed to do so again and is unlikely to have built up the savings to survive for a protracted period without income.

Crucially, there must be also be a support package in place for those legal practitioners who are paid via dividends. Under the current schemes such people will only be able to receive a minimal amount of support, possibly no more than £575 per month. This could be solved by extending support to sole practitioners operating via a professional service company.”

Simon Davis concluded by saying:

“Whether in relation to problems with housing, employment or wills – or advising small businesses – small firms are often at the heart of their communities.  It is vital they survive the crisis to play a role in getting the economy back on its feet.”

Moneypenny - an outsourced communications provider - polled 2,000 UK workers over the age of 18 years and who are presently working from home, to show how they are managing with bringing their work life home during the pandemic.

Over 52 per cent of workers said they were happy to continue to work from home. However, 37 per cent stated that they are starting to feel the strain and 6 per cent admitted that they were already struggling - suggesting that some adjustments were needed in their home working schedule.

When it comes to routine, the findings were that a new schedule is being instigated when staff are working from home. 

Almost half of the home workers reported that they got up less than an hour before they started work; 17 per cent get up about 30 minutes before; 15 per cent 45 minutes before work and 42 per cent stated that they get up about one hour before they were due to start.

Confessing to only getting up about 15 minutes before commencing their working day were 6 per cent of home workers – with a further 5 per cent disclosing that they get up just 10 minutes before.

Finding the perfect place within the home can be difficult, as the home is filled with distractions, such as television. The survey found that 24 per cent of adults preferred to work from their living room and 15 per cent of people said that they prefer the comfort of a table in order to conduct their daily work - with more comfortable seating such as sofas and beds coming in as a close second.

The respondents to the survey also gave recommendations when it comes to home working. They suggested that workers should use a comfortable chair and have their own space to focus; they should devise a writing plan; ensure they have regular breaks for fresh air; listen to music and keep active.

When asked if companies had helped with setting up a home office, 53 per cent of respondents said that they did not receive any help from their employer, whilst 26 per cent stated that they were able to take home a screen and to stock up on any necessary office supplies.   Vouchers or cash to purchase all necessary items were given to 16 per cent of the home workers.

Joanna Swash - CEO at Moneypenny - commented:

“It’s clear that many companies are relying on their staff having a full home office to enable them to work from home and companies should be auditing the facilities their staff need and providing them. We also have research that shows that 1 in 10 UK businesses are still sending staff into the office to answer phone calls which is not necessary when there are so many tech solutions available that don’t cost a fortune and can help provide efficient communications.” 

Of those surveyed, 46 per cent stated that they made sure to stick to their normal lunch hours, with 28 per cent saying that they take shorter lunch breaks then they usually would when in the office and 11 per cent stating that they take longer breaks. Some - 15 per cent - stated that they do not take any lunch breaks at all.

However, the boundaries between work and free time appear to be blurring with 73 per cent of home workers saying that they are answering calls and emails after working hours.

A poll, which surveyed more than 300 employers and was conducted by People Management and CIPD, has found that one in four employers expect to make permanent redundancies as a result of Covid-19. This poll was undertaken to understand how HR teams have been responding to the coronavirus outbreak.

It was found that 52 per cent of employers planned to temporarily lay off staff through the government’s job retention scheme and of those, 17 per cent stated that they anticipated having to furlough up to 10 per cent of their workforce – and another 10 per cent of those surveyed forecast that they would have to temporarily lay off up to 24 per cent of the workforce. 

Despite the government’s interventions, 15 per cent of those surveyed were expecting to make up to 10 per cent of their existing workforce redundant - 9 per cent of employers anticipated having to lose up to 49 per cent of their workers - and 1 per cent would lose more than 75 per cent.

Firms have been asked - by experts - to consider other options carefully and only make permanent redundancies when all else fails, warning that the staff can still bring tribunal claims if the situations are not handled correctly.

Apart from furloughing and making staff redundant, 35 per cent of respondents cited asking staff to take annual leave; 26 per cent cited temporarily deploying employees to other parts of the business; 25 per cent reducing working hours and 24 per cent freezing or deferring pay rises.

Ben Willmott - head of public policy at the CIPD - said:

“Making redundancies should be a last resort once all other options for reducing workforce costs have been taken. Organisations that are most successful in protecting jobs and supporting their employees will also be those that are most resilient and best able to recover once this crisis is past.”

Paul Holcroft - Associate Director at Croner - said it was not surprising that some businesses felt they had no choice but to make staff redundant, but warned about the usual rules surrounding redundancy continuing to apply.  

He stated:

“Employees can still seek to bring tribunal claims if their employers do not handle these situations properly – a process that is likely to drag on for an extended period because of the outbreak.” 

Jude Read - Managing Director of Jude Read Consultancy - told People Management that the furlough scheme had been a “godsend” for her clients.

She added:

“We’re not just talking about five or six employees being furloughed – we’re talking about 20 to 50 workers being furloughed at one time. Can you imagine if this was redundancy and having to handle a collective consultation as well?” 

However, money from the job retention scheme is not expected to start arriving until the end of April at the earliest, and both Jude Read and Sarah Dowzell - Chief Operating Officer and co-founder of Natural HR - said many employers did not have the cash to bridge this gap.

Sarah Dowzell added a warning:

“How you behave and treat your employees – both those being made redundant and those unaffected – during this time of crisis can have a huge impact on the perception of your company once you’re out the other side. Handling it without the due care and attention such a situation deserves will not only make an already stressful time for your employees that much more difficult, but it could also adversely affect how your business is viewed externally and your ability to attract future talent”.

Due to the COVID-19 situation, The Pensions Regulator has decided that it can adopt a more flexible approach in a number of areas to what is normally expected of reporting and when enforcement action would be appropriate under the current circumstances.

This will apply until 30 June 2020, but The Pensions Regulator will continue to review whether or not more specific flexibility is required in the weeks following this date and, in fact, whether the date should be extended. They are to take “a reasonable, pragmatic and proportionate approach” to their regulatory work during this time.

Someone involved in running an occupational pension scheme may need to report certain information to The Pensions Regulator - including when the trustees are in breach of certain obligations imposed on them. However, the new guidance states that “if a breach will be rectified in less than three months and does not negatively impact savers”, then there is no need to report it but records should be kept of decisions made and any actions taken.

In making any decisions about whether or not to take regulatory action in respect of any breaches of administrative and compliance requirements, The Pensions Regulator has said that will be decided on a case-by-case basis. A flexible approach will be adopted in respect of granting longer periods to comply - and COVID-19 will be taken into account.

Annual benefit statements; chair’s statements; employer-related investment and master trusts are among a number of areas of reporting and enforcement for which the easing of the regulations would not be appropriate.  

Nicola Parish - The Pensions Regulator Executive Director of frontline regulation - said:

“The pressures caused by Covid-19 have been felt throughout the pensions industry. That’s why we have taken steps to do what we can to reduce the regulatory burden on trustees, employers and providers at this unprecedented time. We will take a reasonable, pragmatic and proportionate approach to our regulatory work during Covid-19. However, there are a number of areas, particularly those regulations designed to directly protect savers’ interests, where we are not easing our requirements. Trustees, employers and providers should read The Pension Regulator’s Covid-19 guidance so they are clear on what is expected of them at this time.”

A new report surveying 301 HR professionals and conducted by the CIPD and People Management, found that 67 per cent of respondents said that supporting people’s mental health during the pandemic was their key challenge.  

For 70 per cent of employers, making sure that staff working remotely is staying well both physically and mentally was their biggest challenge. Despite the uncertainty many employers now find themselves in, deciding on the best way to respond to the crisis as a business accounted for only 49 per cent.

Other challenges employers have found whilst dealing with the Covid-19 outbreak are 47 per cent of staff were not able to work from home; 36 per cent stated lack of government information and 34 per cent were unable to work because schools are closed.

Where staff are working at home, 65 per cent found the biggest challenge was where staff had to balance work and the commitment of looking after children; 64 per cent reported keeping the staff motivated and 57 per cent found it challenging ensuring that staff are communicating effectively with each other.

The CIPD is encouraging employers to have continual communication with their staff and to take early action in offering support - such as counselling - and stating that management should be trained and confident to support the employees’ continued well-being for both those in the workplace and those working from home.

Rachel Suff - well-being adviser at the CIPD - said:

“On one hand, these finding are welcome as it shows that the vast majority of employers do care about their staff and recognise they have a responsibility to look out for them. On the other, it does bring home the heavy toll that this crisis is putting people under, and some employers and line mangers may well be feeling out of their depth in how to best support them. There are simple steps employers can take at this time to support their staff’s mental well-being, such as reminding managers about the importance of communicating regularly with their teams, asking how they’re doing, and signposting to advice on good self-care like healthy diet, sleep and relaxation habits.”

On being asked whether more staff would be allowed to work from home - or to work unconventional hours - if the working arrangements proved successful - 41 per cent agreed they would; 9 per cent stated they would not and 12 per cent stated that they did not know.

Until recently, most people in the UK had never heard of furlough, but the impact of coronavirus on the economy means that over the next few months, millions of workers will rely on this scheme.

Furloughed workers are common in the United States. The term furlough means the temporary leave of staff due to the special needs of an employer, caused by the economic conditions of a specific employer - or the economy as a whole.

Furlough leave is a new idea - introduced as an alternative solution for employers who might otherwise have had to put into practice redundancies; unpaid leave or other measures for their staff.

Rishi Sunak - the Chancellor of the Exchequer - recently announced that if employers are unable to cover staff costs due to the coronavirus, they may have the option of applying for support to enable them to continue paying 80 per cent of their employee’s wages, up to a maximum of £2,500. The guidance at present states that all businesses will be eligible to claim a reimbursement for at least three months - backdated from 1st March 2020 - and this period may be extended if necessary.

The employees named as furloughed workers will remain in employment and consequently will continue to be on the company payroll; accrue holidays and accrue continuous service. Employers may, if they wish, add to the 80 per cent wage paid under the government scheme, to enable the furloughed staff to receive their full wage but this is not compulsory.

Coronavirus restrictions mean that the work of many firms - such as pubs, restaurants, cafes, travel firms and estate agents has come to a standstill and a recent YouGov poll suggested that one in 20 workers have already lost their jobs because of the pandemic.

Any UK organisation with employees can apply, but in practice it is thought that it will mainly be private sector businesses and charities that claim.

Amongst the firms that will furlough a significant proportion of staff are British Airways and EasyJet with Greggs, McDonald's, Arcadia and Nissan also among firms furloughing all or part of their workforce

Millions of businesses globally have moved to remote working to enable them to continue operating, to protect their employees and help to slow the spread of Coronavirus.

Computers, smartphones and other technology will be heavily relied on by remote workers for completing tasks; collaborating on work and communicating with the rest of the team. The electronic devices are very powerful during these times but increased use can cause significant damage to employee’s eyes. For a lot of employees, this way of working will be completely new and they will not know that their electronic devices can pose a risk to their health. 

Employers have the same health and safety responsibilities for home workers as for any other workers and - as such - should consider how they will keep in touch with their employees; what the employees work activity will be and for how long; whether it can be done safely and if any measures are needed to protect them.

Where possible, employers should allow employees to take home equipment – keyboards, mouse, riser, etc. For other larger items, ergonomic chairs or height- adjustable desks, workers could be encouraged to try other ways of creating a comfortable working environment with for example, supporting cushions.

When employees are working at home on a long-term basis, the risks associated with using display screen equipment [2] must be controlled, which would include undertaking home workstation assessments. However, for those working at home temporarily employers do not need to do this, but they should provide practical advice - such as suggesting that the employee breaks up long spells of computer work with rest breaks of at least 5 minutes every hour; avoids eye fatigue by changing focus and regularly changes position, getting up to do stretching exercises.

Other simple steps to reduce fatigue on the visual system include working at an arm’s length from the screen; adjusting the height and level of the screen so that it is 5-6 inches below the straight line of vision and positioning the screen away from overhead lighting or windows to avoid glare.

Every business is being encouraged to do what they can to support their employees.  As a business owner, manager or HR professional, it is important to communicate all these steps and practices effectively so that remote workers are constantly healthy and productive.

The risks are greater for lone workers with no direct supervision or anyone to help them if things go wrong. Keeping in touch with lone workers - including those working from home - will help to ensure that they are healthy and safe.

Employers are being urged to step up their mental health support for employees during the Covid-19 crisis lockdown.

Research from People Management shows that managers lack confidence in this area and are finding that staff anxiety about Covid-19 is HR’s biggest challenge.

The CIPD and Simplyhealth has released figures showing that the majority of managers were falling short on this even before the crisis began and they are stating that immediate action is required if employees are to avoid being at risk from poor mental health both during and after the coronavirus pandemic.

Between October and mid-November, a poll of 1,018 HR professionals across the UK was conducted. It found that 25 per cent of HR professionals were of the opinion that managers were able to recognise the early warning signs of mental ill- health, but only 31 per cent thought that managers were confident enough to deal with these problems in a sensitive manner. This figure of 31 per cent is not specifically related to the coronavirus, as that figure has remained at this level for the past four years.

The CIPD, Simplyhealth Health and Well-being Survey at Work 2020 report stated that concern over job security and income loss, added to fear of infection and feelings of isolation is likely to increase the anxiety, pressure and stress that is affecting many people.

Rachel Suff, Advisor - ER & Diversity (Europe) for CIPD, stated:

“With so many people working at home, it can be even harder for managers to pick up on cues that their colleagues might be struggling. It’s really important that managers are regularly checking in with their team and making use of video calls, so interactions can be as personal as possible.”

She added:

“Employers also need to remember that their duty of care for people’s health and safety carries on no matter where staff are based. These findings show that whilst more managers are being trained to help colleagues with their mental health, it doesn’t always seem to be translating into better support for staff.”

Respondents to the survey were also asked about their biggest challenges in relation to staff working remotely and 70 per cent cited ensuring employees’ physical and mental wellbeing.

Richard Gillies - Chief Operating Officer at Simplyhealth - remarked:

“Organisations who have already adopted a proactive approach to supporting their employees’ wellbeing will be well positioned during the coronavirus crisis. By making good use of initiatives like employee assistance programmes that offer counselling and 24/7 remote access to a GP, employees will benefit from additional support for their health at such a difficult time.”

When businesses were asked about their methods for checking how staff were feeling about new working arrangements - and the coronavirus situation generally - 66 per cent reported that they relied on line manager feedback; 56 per cent direct employee feedback and only 9 per cent had utilised staff surveys.

Stephen Bevan - head of HR research development at the Institute of Employment Studies - said that the move to remote working made it harder for HR and managers to pick up on the fact that their colleagues might be struggling.

He stated:

“The fact that people are so distant means that even the most empathetic manager can't really spot signs of staff’s behaviour, disposition or even physical signs of people being in trouble of some kind.”

He added that employers could support employees, trust them to do their jobs and offer the flexibility for staff to work around other responsibilities such as childcare – saying:

“In the current circumstances, I think there are some lessons in getting people to psychologically segment their day where logistically possible, to communicate that to people and be trusted by their employer and to offer the flexibility for staff to work around other responsibilities such as childcare.  There’s nothing worse than people thinking they have to be sending emails at 6pm just to show that they’re active online, otherwise people will think they’ve skived off early.” 

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 recent survey was conducted by Soapbox - a London-based creative communications agency - of 200+ managers from across over 30 industries and with collectively over 1280 years of management experience. The survey was to learn how they conduct one-on-one meetings with their teams. 

Of the managers surveyed, 94 per cent stated that they carried out one-on-ones and of the remaining 6 per cent, most stated that the reason they did not do so was lack of time.

Nearly half the managers who held one-on-one meetings reported that the agenda is a shared responsibility with the team members. Only 23 per cent discuss alignment to company mission, but 75 per cent reported discussing growth and development.

About one in two managers have one-on-one meetings on a weekly basis - helping to build rapport, trust and continuous feedback with the employees.

When questioned about the goal of one-on-one meetings, 70 per cent state it is to understand and eliminate roadblocks; 61 per cent stated it is to ensure employees are engaged and happy - and 53 per cent is to enquire how specific projects are coming along.

An overwhelming 68 per cent of managers said that juggling their responsibilities - along with managing a team - is their biggest challenge as a people leader. The next challenge specified was hitting team goals - referred to by 14 per cent of managers. This was followed by over 10 per cent stating that getting their team to collaborate with one another was a test and 4 per cent cited retaining employees.

Brennan McEachran - CEO and Co-Founder - SoapBox, said:

“Most managers start their people leadership journeys with zero training, zero coaching, zero tools and zero experience. They're left to their own devices to figure out an entirely new set of skills: leading others. After 10 years in the management space, we’ve learned that the biggest opportunity a manager has to impact the performance and engagement of an employee is during one-on-one meetings. We've also learned that for many managers, this time is often disorganized and unproductive. But how can we help a group of under-serviced super-powerful people in today's workplace level-up their one-on-ones? “

He added:

“We believe the findings in this report are extremely important for new and existing managers looking to find their groove. We’re aiming to understand the state of management through the one-on-one lens and hope that as a result, managers reading this can build on the patterns that have proven successful for others."

A decision has been made by a Manchester Employment Tribunal that to deny an experienced solicitor a job because he was considered too expensive, amounted to age discrimination.

Mr Raymond Levy was 57 years old and had been a practising solicitor since 1985 - specialising in commercial property law - when, on 5th March 2018 he answered an advert placed by McHale Legal Limited for a commercial property role requiring a solicitor with at least five years’ post-qualification experience (PQE).

Mr Levy - who had just been made redundant from his previous job - was asked by the senior solicitor specialising in commercial property law at McHale Legal, Ms Maria Udalova-Surkova, to send his CV and an interview was arranged for 7th March 2018.

At the interview, Ms Udalova-Surkova told Mr Levy that the role was required to be filled fairly urgently as a senior associate was leaving the firm and work was ‘piling up’ as new instructions came in.

Mr Levy was asked what salary he was looking for and due to the role being based in Manchester - and being aware that the salary would be less than the £60,000 he would expect to be paid in London - he suggested that he could work for £50,000 for the first three months. He also offered to work on a self-employed consultancy basis.

Ms Udalova-Surkova then suggested a start date of the following Monday 12th March - but told Mr Levy that the decision was dependent on the result of a meeting between the heads of departments. 

The following day - 8th March - Ms Udalova-Surkova had a meeting with the other department heads to discuss the role. The notes from this meeting implied that Mr Levy was asking for a salary of £50,000-£60,000. This was an overstatement of what he had actually said he was looking for - and resulted in the suggestion that Mr Levy was ‘expensive’ and ‘doesn’t cover all our needs’.

On 9th March, Ms Udalova-Surkova emailed Andrew McHale - Senior Associate - saying, “Just to confirm, we are not interested in Raymond Levy, right?”. The tribunal heard that Mr McHale’s reply was, “Yep.” 

On 12th March, Mr Levy received an email which stated that his application had not been successful saying, “I regret to inform you that at this stage we would not require your services as we have decided to go for a 3-5 PQE solicitor to train to our specific requirements.”

The Tribunal felt McHale Limited - despite its ‘clumsily-worded’ commitment in the handbook to ‘actively support … discrimination legislation’ - had little understanding and awareness of discrimination legislation. The employment judge Sharon Lanridge said:

“The lack of formal training in diversity and equality issues was apparent from the respondent’s complacency, and its aggressive defence of this claim was wholly at odds with its self-imposed commitment in the handbook to take such complaints seriously. The continued threats to report the claimant to the SRA were revealing of an employer which is impervious to the possibility that it may have discriminated, even without appreciating that it had done so.

We did not consider that the respondent’s decision was a proportionate means of achieving any legitimate aim, not least because it was clear from the context that the claimant was flexible about salary and the duration of the job, offering also to work on a self-employed basis, yet he was not even invited to negotiate. While we may accept that it is legitimate to appoint a solicitor whose experience and salary expectations match the commercial needs of the firm… the refusal to offer the claimant the job in this case was quite disproportionate. Rather than keep an open mind and negotiate terms with the claimant, the respondent instead deprived him of an opportunity to obtain work at a time when he was unemployed and receptive to discussing the salary level.”

The Tribunal ruled that ‘expensive’ was in fact ‘synonymous with his being an experienced and older solicitor’, and that the firm changed the job requirements to suit a more junior solicitor after it had deemed Mr Levy unsuitable.

McHale Legal Limited is to appeal.

Kate Palmer - Associate Director of advisory at Peninsula - commented that this case showed how the particular wording of job advertisements may place individuals of a certain age at a disadvantage - resulting in employers falling foul of equality laws. She stated:

“As seen here, asking for someone with three-to-five years’ PQE is highly likely to only apply to younger applicants, meaning older candidates would automatically miss out on this opportunity because of their age despite meeting the requirements of the role. The fact that the employers in this case could not justify this requirement, providing contradictory explanations concerning the cost of the claimant despite his being willing to negotiate a lower salary with them, was one of the key reasons his claim succeeded.”

According to global research undertaken by the Hackett Group consultancy, over commitment represents the ‘greatest transformation hurdle’ for HR management.

In addition, the Hackett Group’s HR Key Issues research - based on data from 200 global executives - illustrated that the most critical development area for HR was organisational culture. The research also found that talent management and development is a high priority.

Tony DiRomualdo - Senior Research Director for The Hackett Group - said:

“Culture has always been in the top 10, but the move to the number-one spot in terms of both top issues and critical development areas is unprecedented and disconcerting. It speaks to the challenges that both the enterprise and HR have had in coping with the impact of digital business. Even if they’re making progress on the technology front, legacy organisational culture is holding the organisation back from achieving its full potential. HR executives are feeling the pressure to help the business move faster, to innovate, take risks and to be more experimental.”

Franco Girimonte - The Hackett Group Associate Principal - stated:

“We are seeing more and more organisations invest in their talent management processes such as recruiting websites, applicant tracking and assessments, candidate and employee experience, engagement tracking and inner mobility.”

He added:

“Achieving a proper balance - while transforming the function - is critical. As HR technology changes are made, it’s important that they also look at things like their operating model, skill sets, alignment of responsibilities and more. Ignoring this will hurt them in the long run.”

The research found that in the adoption and effectiveness levels for various technologies, HR is more aggressive than other business functions in adopting cloud-based systems, expecting to see a 26 per cent growth - but nearly 60 per cent of respondents were found to still rely on legacy on-premise systems, which frequently fall short of expectations.

Although less than 10 per cent of HR functions had completed large-scale deployments, robotic process automation met respondents’ expectations 83 per cent of the time, whilst 8 per cent said it exceeded expectations and 8 per cent said it fell short.

With regard to digital skills, 76 per cent of respondents said they had either large or very large skill gaps in analytics and modelling – with 67 per cent saying the same about ‘data savviness’.

Surveys and focus groups were thought to be the most effective practices to improve the employee experience by 23 per cent of the respondents.

Franco Girimonte stated:

“It’s an uphill battle for HR to improve its ability to support enterprise objectives while moving forward with their own functional improvement agenda. The challenges identified in our research are too numerous to be overcome in a single year. Instead, HR leaders should aim to make measurable improvements in capabilities that address top business priorities such as enterprise digital transformation, culture and skills gaps. This will increase HR’s value contribution to the business and help it to secure further support from top leaders for HR transformation efforts.”

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) is assessing whether drones could help in search and rescue missions across the UK. A new project is investigating if the devices could also boost missions by visiting rescue sites ahead of air, sea or land-based recovery teams.

This would provide a full picture of the situation and develop the appropriate response.

The MCA will assess the use of drones for regular and routine flights and demonstration flights will be carried out using several unmanned aerial system drones. Last year, the MCA's civilian search and rescue helicopters responded to an average of seven missions a day, saving more than 1,600 people. Overall, the MCA co-ordinated more than 22,000 incidents and rescued more than 7,000 people across the year

After angrily storming out of a meeting - making a comment appearing to resign his position - a managing director has won his claim of unfair dismissal against a company he founded in 1990.

In December, the Employment Tribunal hearing the claim of Mr Robert S Rae v Wellhead Electrical Supplies Ltd were told that Mr Rae - as he left the meeting about employee’s pay - told his fellow directors, Mr Charles Ogg (Finance Director/Company Secretary) and Mr Greg Rastall, that he would not be back.

The tribunal heard that from early 2019, company employees repeatedly asked Mr Rae about salary increases as there had not been any since 2014, due to a downturn in business. As he was very much in favour of awarding increases - to ensure that valued members of staff were retained - he raised the issue on a number of occasions with his fellow directors, in particular Mr Ogg, the Finance Director.

On 7 March 2019, at a board meeting, a pay rise was agreed and Mr Rae was under the impression that - in addition to a general pay increase - Mr Rae’s son and a member of his sales team would be given a higher pay rise.

The tribunal were told that, in previous informal discussions, Mr Rae had threatened to resign if the proposed pay increases did not go through.

After the pay rise agreement, Mr Rae informed the two employees about their expected increase, but this was not reflected in their next pay cheques. Mr Rae was devastated and embarrassed by this.  

On 21 March, Mr Rae followed up the matter with Mr Ogg and, on asking Mr Ogg if the higher pay increase had gone through he was told that it had not. The tribunal heard that Mr Rae then threw his keys on Mr Ogg’s desk and shouted, “I told you what was going to happen. I won’t be back.” Mr Ogg reported that Mr Rae also said, “I resign” - which was disputed by Mr Rae. However, Mr Rae did agree that he stated to Mr Rastall, “I think I have just resigned” or words to that effect.

Two hours later, an emergency board meeting was held and it was agreed to accept Mr Rae’s resignation. Minutes were taken at the meeting - which stated, “Mr Rae’s actions were a direct result of three previous threats to resign should his son Mark and assistant Yvonne not be given payroll increases out with the current salary scale structure.”

When cross-examined about this, Mr Ogg agreed that there had only been two other occasions and that the word ‘resignation’ had not been used but that what Mr Rae had stated amounted to that. The minutes also recorded that both the other directors agreed to accept Mr Rae’s remarks as his resignation, due to his hostile attitude at the last board meeting.

The following day, Mr Rae telephoned the company to say that he was going to the doctor that day as he was suffering from stress and would return when he was better. He spoke to Mr Rastall who, Mr Rae alleged swore at him – which the employment judge accepted because Mr Rastall had told the tribunal that he was “quite happy with Rab resigning”. The judge had already put on record that Mr Rae gave his evidence at the tribunal “in a measured, consistent and convincing manner”, presenting as credible and reliable.

Mr Rae saw a doctor that day and was signed off work until 5 April, but he did not return to work. Mr Rastall did not reply to Mr Rae’s message, sending him a letter the same day saying that the company had accepted his resignation.

When Mr Rae disputed this, he received another letter telling him he was no longer a director at Wellhead and warned him not to interfere with any future company business or communicate with any staff members. He then received his P45.  

The tribunal accepted that on the day Mr Rae walked out, his actions “amounted to an apparently unambiguous resignation” but in the circumstances in which it had happened, the company should have given more thought before ending Mr Rae’s employment. They stated that “it would be normal practice for someone in a senior position to resign by giving written notice”. It was also noted that when a former director of Wellhead resigned in 2011, he was allocated a ‘cooling off’ period.

The tribunal stated that “the directors were blinkered by an overwhelming desire to ensure that the claimant would not be allowed to return to work, in any circumstances, and that no explanation whatsoever from him for his conduct - even though it was unprecedented in some thirty years - would be accepted.”

Paul Holcroft - associate director at Croner - commented:

“Tempers can flare in the workplace, and it is advisable in these circumstances to give the employee time to calm down, contact them later, and get them to confirm in writing that they do wish to resign.”

Thalis Vlachos - employment law partner at Gunnercooke - said:

“The danger point for the employer is that if they then do not allow that person to retract their resignation, then they've followed no procedure. It's then considered a dismissal and they then face an employment tribunal claim, as in this case.”

No settlement has yet been agreed.

An online poll of 2,700 respondents aged 16+ in work in Great Britain was conducted by the TUC and research company GQR. It found that 18 per cent of UK workers have been ordered not to discuss their earnings with colleagues.

In addition, it was found that half of the workers polled are not aware of the salaries earned by senior management in their organisations; more than half, i.e. 53 per cent of workers, are not given information about their co-workers pay and only 18 per cent reported that their workplace has a transparent pay policy, where salary details are available to everyone through an official source.

The TUC is calling for a ban on pay secrecy - or gagging clauses - which prevent the workers from challenging unfair pay, discrimination and excessive top-to-bottom pay ratios.

Frances O’Grady - TUC General Secretary - said:

“Pay secrecy clauses are a get out of jail free card for bad bosses. They stop workers from challenging unfair pay, allow top executives to hoard profits and encourage discrimination against women and disabled people. Talking about pay can feel a bit uncomfortable, but more openness about wages is essential to building fairer workplaces.”

The TUC is calling on the government to ban secrecy clauses outright - allowing everyone to discuss their pay and other work benefits and to give stronger union rights in order that unions can ensure transparent and fair processes for setting pay rates.

Duncan Brown, head of HR consultancy at the Institute of Employment Studies, stated that some protection for workers - rendering pay secrecy clauses enforceable if the employer is trying to prevent a relevant pay disclosure - is already provided by the Equality Act. He stated:

“People will only trust their pay is fair if they understand and can see how it is determined and how their pay relates to that of others.”

However, Emma Bartlett - Partner at Charles Russell Speechlys - said that banning secrecy clauses alone would not improve pay transparency. She added:

“Placing the onus on an individual worker to root out discrimination is not an effective way of reducing discriminatory pay decisions. As demonstrated by the compulsory gender pay gap reporting, the key would have to be pushing companies to publish meaningful data on levels of pay in certain roles, so that a proper analysis can be undertaken.”

Kate Palmer - Associate Director of advisory at Peninsula Business Services - said that banning conversations on differences in wages can help prevent arguments or disputes arising at work, but she also warned that employers would have nothing to fear from staff discussing salaries if they can show the reasoning behind why one worker is paid more than another.

Towards the end of 2019, online research - based on 2,016 UK flexible workers - was conducted by Censuswide, on behalf of 99&One. The survey sample included 558 decision makers who work in IT, Finance and accounts or HR.

The research showed that 66 per cent of workers believe that they are more productive when they work flexibly, but many are being held back because they cannot make the best or most effective use of their technology.

99&One’s research revealed that companies are still not getting some basic technology configurations right, with 17 per cent of employees still experiencing connectivity issues when working remotely.

The survey disclosed that part of the problem is that workers have been overloaded with technology they have not yet been able to fully adopt or master - such as 67 per cent who state instant messaging; 61 per cent shared documents; 48 per cent cloud-based collaboration tools; 40 per cent video conferencing and 36 per cent audio conferencing.

It was also revealed that just 43 per cent of employees have received additional training or support on technologies to enable them to work more flexibly.

Employees who have received sufficient training on flexible working technologies were found to be 56 per cent happier at work than the 11 per cent who are not offered any support. Trained workers are also more than twice as likely - 45 per cent as opposed to 18 per cent - to say that they get more work done in the same amount of time when working flexibly.   

Steve Haworth - CEO of the TeleWare Group - stated:

“Digital transformation is the key to encouraging productivity, engagement and collaboration. However, many companies have still not got to grips with their IT investment. Just 1% of UK businesses have productivity above 1%. Optimised technology could improve productivity, profitability and employee engagement.”  

He added:

“Setting employees up with the right tools to carry out their role is not enough. They need to feel confident using them. Companies should be prepared to deliver and embed technology change in a people-first way, helping everyone in the organisation to fully embrace change.”

Business leaders have been warned that the UK’s lacklustre productivity performance is continuing, after new figures showed minimal growth.

The latest productivity figures published by the Office for National Statistics show that output per hour rose only 0.1 per cent in the third quarter of last year - compared to the same period in 2018 and because earnings growth is outstripping output, the cost of labour has risen by 3.6 per cent - leading to calls for employers to invest in skills and technology.

Gerwyn Davies - senior labour market adviser at the CIPD, the professional body for HR and people development - said:

“These latest figures offer further evidence that stronger earnings growth isn’t encouraging employers to invest in higher levels of productivity. Political uncertainty may have cast a shadow over some UK businesses’ confidence levels and held them back from investing over the recent past.  However, with some of that uncertainty now removed, employers should be looking to improve output through greater investment in skills and technology, and not through intensifying work.”

He added:

“The introduction of new migration restrictions - alongside another generous up-rating in the national living wage later this year - is a compelling reason for employers to make this a priority. A failure to do this may result in job cuts in some cases. And, while the government’s commitment to increasing investment in infrastructure is welcome, more business support is needed for small firms to help them make the right investment, particularly in how they manage and develop their staff.”

Matt Weston - Managing Director of recruitment firm Robert Half UK - commenting on the figures issued by the Office for National Statistics, said:

“Employers can expect to be at the receiving end of promotion and pay rise requests while top professionals will be fielding multiple job offers. In order to win the war for talent, employers will need to consider a flexible hiring strategy, looking at both permanent and temporary staff to bring a range of skills and experience to the team and help tackle any productivity challenges.

The onus is also on employers to provide a competitive remuneration package that is attractive to staff. That said employees are also receptive to other benefits such as flexible working, health and wellbeing perks and training opportunities, all of which should be considered as part of any offer to retain or attract a talented team.”

Katherine Kent - Head of Productivity at the Office for National Statistics - commented:

“Although productivity grew on the year, the underlying picture is of sustained weakness since 2008, with growth over the past year being only a third of the average over the last 10 years or so. The significance of this continued weakness has now been recognised by the Royal Statistical Society, which named this poor productivity performance as its ‘UK Statistic of the Decade’.”

Tej Parikh - Chief Economist at the Institute of Directors - stated:

“The UK’s lacklustre productivity performance goes on, laying bare the challenge facing the new Government. A long period of uncertainty has sapped business leaders’ confidence to invest in the equipment and technology they need to drive productivity growth. Meanwhile, talent shortages and bottlenecks in our infrastructure have constrained our ability to catalyse economic activity. The UK’s decade-long struggle to raise its productivity game has in turn restrained wage growth.

A 55-year-old Managing Director for energy banking - Niels Kirk - was found to have been unfairly dismissed by the global bank Citigroup in November 2017 after he had allegedly been told by his boss, “You are old and set in your ways.” He had been employed by Citigroup since June 1991.

Mr Kirk made his claim in February 2018.

His boss - who is global co-head of banking - denied telling Mr Kirk that he was old and set in his ways. However, the judge – John Goodrich – found that Mr Kirk’s boss’s evidence was less convincing than Mr Kirk’s, who took notes during the meeting.

Mr Kirk stated that he had not been given any notice of the proposed restructuring and the fact that he was likely to be made redundant but a senior banker at Citigroup assessed Mr Kirk at the end of 2015 and told him:

“The team is stronger, with the time coming to provide the next level of bankers with more opportunities to demonstrate the quality and depth of their customer relationships and deal management capabilities.”

In the ruling made by Judge Goodrich, it stated that Citigroup did not accept that the comment meant that Mr Kirk should make way for younger staff members - but it simply expressed the need for the senior manager to develop and improve the skills of team members.

When Mr Kirk’s record at the firm was scrutinised in detail, it was found that generally he had very good ratings and feedback, but with some decline over the past few years.

A witness - co-head of corporate banking EMEA - said there were concerns about Mr Kirk’s partnership skills, based on the feedback received in the performance review processes for 2015 and 2016 and a senior banker who managed Mr Kirk gave evidence stating that he carried out a “stress-testing exercise” by comparing Mr Kirk’s skills with those of Ms Marie-Christine Olive, who had been lined up as the preferred candidate for Mr Kirk’s replacement.

The tribunal heard that Mr Kirk contended that this was not meaningful, because the decision to replace him had already been reached.

The tribunal was sceptical about explanations given for the replacement of Mr Kirk with the slightly younger Ms Olive. It found that before Mr Kirk was notified on 25 September 2017of the proposed restructure, Ms Olive had already been informed that she was their preferred candidate for the position and asked to confirm that she wanted the role.

The tribunal also noted that HR had not kept full records of meetings between Mr Kirk and the above bankers, although the court heard that it was normal for HR to keep these records.

Mr Kirk asserted that the decision to pass him over was based on his age rather than his skills and the tribunal agreed, ruling that Citigroup was guilty of age discrimination when it dismissed him.

Neils Kirk stated:

“I still feel extremely sad about the way my 26-year career at Citibank ended.”

A survey has found that more than half of UK workers are considering finding a new job within the year and according to recent reports collected by Instant Offices, most Brits are likely to hand in their resignation letters on 31st January - with a number calling in sick on the first Monday in February to attend interviews.

The survey - commissioned by accreditation body Investors in People – found that 24 per cent of respondents had already started actively job hunting. A further 32 per cent were considering changing their jobs, but had not yet started looking. The total number of respondents either searching or thinking about searching has increased by 8 per cent compared to 2019.

Investors in People have warned about increased levels of disillusionment in the workplace, stating that employers faced a ‘new year recruitment crisis’.

Nearly a quarter of workers - 23 per cent - were unhappy with their current job and 65 per cent dreaded going back to work after the weekend. Dissatisfaction with pay levels was expressed by 28 per cent of respondents, with 29 per cent of those considering changing roles stating that they believed that they could earn more money elsewhere. Not feeling valued was felt by 23 per cent - whilst 18 per cent of respondents cited lack of career progression.

Paul Devoy - CEO of Investors in People - said:

“Six years into our job exodus research, we’re still hearing that people want to be told ‘thank you’. It’s something so simple, so consistently important and potentially the best retention tool we’ve got.”

Friendly workplaces were also considered important by respondents to the survey, with 54 per cent saying that having a friend at work was important to them - whilst 25 per cent admitted to remaining in their job because of a friendship rather than because they enjoyed the work. In fact, 47 per cent of respondents said they would rather have a friendly workplace than a 3 per cent pay rise.

A 2019 YouGov survey had revealed that the top priorities for workers included travel and getting a promotion or pay rise; learning new skills and getting a new job. The top five reasons found in this survey as to why employees look to hand in their notices were low salary; job tenure; monotonous or boring work; job location or length of commute and disapproval of their boss or line manager.

A survey by the Institute of Business Ethics has found that 57 per cent of those polled believe that businesses behave ethically. This is down from 62 per cent in 2018 and the first time since 2016 that the sense of business ethics has shown to have got worse in the poll. 

According to the Institute of Business Ethics, the biggest issues undermining public trust are corporate tax avoidance, executive pay and environmental responsibility with experts believing that HR has a key role in improving matters.

David D’Souza - Director of Membership at the CIPD - stated:

“HR's opportunity is to help senior teams to genuinely change the way that we operate, to make sure organisations are fit for the modern world.”  

He added that public perception was just one element of assessing the ethical health of UK businesses, and didn’t necessarily reflect the exact reality, saying:

“I think it's healthier to be concerned about the reality, because I think that's how you shift the perception over time. It's important that people keep calling out where businesses aren't doing things well. In the short term this undermines trust, but in the longer term it provides an incentive for organisations to be better.”

Research based on a Rapid Evidence Assessment - conducted by the CIPD, CEBMa and the Australian National University - to identify the factors that influence ethical behaviour at work, asked three key questions: 

• To what extent is unethical behaviour the result of individual choices?
• Is unethical behaviour the result of organisation or industry-wide problems, in particular organisational culture or ingrained norms of behaviour?
• How far is unethical behaviour due to the difficult or compromising nature of decisions that people face at work?

The research revealed that personality and mood affected people’s behaviour - frustrated worked were more likely to act unethically. Organisational culture and leadership appears to influence unethical behaviour, but moral leadership and ethical climate enhance ethical behaviour. 

It was found that certain situations can impact on ethical behaviour. Time pressure or isolated decision making can increase the likelihood of unethical behaviour - whereas accountability and checks can reduce it. 

Chadi Moussa - client partner at Let’s Talk Talent and former HR Director - stated that young people usually held businesses to a higher standard, thus highlighting how crucial it is for organisations to maintain a strong ethical reputation in order to attract the best talent. He added:

“People have an expectation that businesses operate ethically, and if that means that companies pay more voluntary tax, or if that means that companies now show clearly how they’re addressing some corporate social responsibility issues, then that's something they need to do – because it's about attracting and keeping the best people.”  

Philippa Foster Back - Director of IBE - said:

“Business appears to be increasingly proactive in addressing certain issues of public concern, such as discrimination in the workplace and openness of information. However, the fact that corporate tax avoidance, executive pay and environmental responsibility remain top of the list – and the latter two at increased proportions – indicates that business is not doing nearly enough to address the ethical issues that the public are most concerned about.” 

Recently, a central London Employment Tribunal heard the case of Adam Glover Bailie v Archer Daniels Midland Investor Services Ltd and Fabian Somerville-Cotton, in which Mr Bailie - a trader in a UK brokerage - alleged discrimination because of his disability.

Mr Bailie - who had worked for Archer Daniels Midland Investor Services Ltd for 22 years - and was the head of equities and fixed income, claimed that he had been marginalised within the company after he had a mental health breakdown. He filed for “disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation” against ADM Ltd and his manager Mr Somerville-Cotton - claiming his depression was triggered by work stress.

The Employment Tribunal judgement found that the Respondents did, in fact, discriminate against Mr Bailie because of his disability and the case will now progress to a two-day remedy hearing in January 2020.

In January 2018, Mr Bailie was diagnosed with clinical depression. In February, 2018 he was working excessively long hours to manage funds of the company and clients during wild swings in the markets. He was then prescribed anti-depressants and in May, he was given temporary medical leave for work-related stress, a situation which became permanent in August 2018. He has not worked since.

At the start of 2018, as head of the company’s global equity and fixed income divisions, he oversaw a period of market volatility. He claimed - in his witness statement - that from November 2017 he had grown increasingly concerned about a lack of stress testing by the firm’s risk division - which was designed to protect the brokerage from heavy losses. He told the hearing that “I was concerned that clients had positions that were too big and our lack of risk meant we couldn’t reduce them.”

At about 2am on February 6 - when markets had worsened - Mr Bailie said that he went to the office to “undertake urgent damage limitation on behalf of clients” but by 5.30am several clients were insolvent and facing losses of about $10m. In his witness statement he stated:

“My direct intervention in manually calculating and trading over the course of the two days considerably reduced the losses to the firm and the clients, which had the potential of running into hundreds of millions of pounds.”

In 2017, after Mr Bailie’s promotion to run the department, he had told the head of Human Resources about his stress and breakdown. He claimed that this head was hostile towards him and unsupportive after he was diagnosed as unfit for work.

Mr Bailie stated that his senior manager Mr Somerville-Cotton told his colleagues in an email that he - Mr Bailie - would continue in a senior leadership role, but that another employee would take on the role of co-head of the department with overall responsibility of the team. Mr Bailie stated that he found out about the change from colleagues while he was away. This action was in direct contrast to an assurance he had previously received from HR and felt that he was being driven out by Mr Somerville-Cotton.

The Employment Tribunal read the minutes of meetings and conversations over the last two years and found that the Respondents did discriminate against Mr Bailie because of his mental health disability and did treat him unfavourably because of “something arising in consequence of his disability” i.e. his absence from work.

Mr Bailie was represented by Irwin Mitchell, who stated that Mr Bailie was “delighted his case has been successful, not only for himself but for other workers in the industry who suffer from stress and anxiety created by a hostile and unsupportive working environment and culture.”

They further stated “This is a major step forward and will be a timely reminder to the financial services industry that it now must safeguard its workers' mental health and well-being.”

Presided over by Lady Hale sitting with Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hughes, the Supreme Court has unanimously allowed an appeal by four judges, each of whom has held one or more appointments as fee paid part-time judges - in some cases having moved between part-time and full-time salaried appointments.

In the case of Miller v Ministry of Justice, the Supreme Court ruled that part-time judges are entitled to bring their claims within three months of their retirement - rather than when their fee-paid judicial posts come to an end.

The issue in this appeal was when time begins for a claim to be made by a part-time judge to a pension under the Part-time Workers’ Directive 97/81, as applied by the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/1551) (PTWR).

Regulation 5 of the PTWR provides that a part-time worker is entitled not to be treated less favourably by their employer than the employer treats a comparable full-time worker. This can be either with regard to the terms of their contract - or by being subject to any other detriment.

The Supreme Court found that the point of unequal treatment occurs at the time the pension fails to be paid. The significance of this ruling is that it could affect over 1,000 judges who have brought claims or are relying on the moratorium.

Judicial pensions - for those appointed on or after 31 March 1995 - are provided for under the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993. The basic concept in that Act is “qualifying judicial office” and the judges, as long as they were not being paid on a salaried basis, were not included in the definition of qualifying judicial office - thereby being excluded from rights to a pension. The four judges - each of whom has held one or more appointments as fee-paid-part time judges - claimed that they had been the subject of less favourable treatment in the provision to them of a judicial pension.

The four judges each lodged a claim with the Employment Tribunal more than three months after the end of a part-time appointment. This meant that they were out of time if the relevant time for lodging a claim was within three months after retirement - but they were within time if the relevant end date is the date of retirement.

Originally, it was held that the three months started to run from the end of any part-time appointment, and thereby held that the claims were brought out of time. However, the Supreme Court issue has been treated as subject to the appeal in Ministry of Justice v O’Brien and is now understood as one of domestic law, and has been argued fully.

According to the World Economic Forum ‘Global Gender Gap Report’, the UK has slipped down the global gender equality ranking.

In 2019, the UK ranked 21st in the WEF global index – having fallen from 16th in 2018. Progress towards gender parity is measured by four key areas: economic participation and opportunity; educational attainment; health and survival and political empowerment.

With a score of one equalling gender parity, Iceland was top with a score of 0.877 - followed by Norway, Finland and Sweden. Seventh in the ranking is Ireland with a score of 0.724, which is up two places from last year. The UK came behind rich countries, including Germany, New Zealand and Canada and also less developed countries, such as the Philippines, Nicaragua and Namibia.

Employment experts have called for tougher rules to deal with discrimination in the workplace, for more flexible working opportunities to be offered to staff and for businesses to be more proactive in addressing the problems of gender inequality.

The report attributes the causes of the economic gender gap to include low levels of women in managerial or leadership positions; wage stagnation; labour force participation and income. The highest representation was in roles hit hardest by automation with too few women entering tech-driven professions and the lack of care infrastructure and access to capital limiting opportunities for women.

Klaus Schwab - World Economic Forum Executive Chairman - said:

“Supporting gender parity is critical to ensuring strong, cohesive and resilient societies around the world. For business, too, diversity will be an essential element to demonstrate that stakeholder capitalism is the guiding principle. This is why the World Economic Forum is working with business and government stakeholders to accelerate efforts to close the gender gap.”

The report - which was compiled before the general election - also cited poor political representation for women as one reason for the UK’s lower ranking.

Dr Jill Miller - Diversity and Inclusion Adviser at the CIPD - stated that the UK was making progress in gender equality, but report results show that the progress is too slow.

“The thought that future generations will still be having the same dialogue as we’re having now is unacceptable.”

She added that the insufficient care infrastructure; lack of affordable childcare; the introduction of a week’s statutory paid carers and a reform of parental leave policies to offer more choice over how parents distribute caring responsibilities, were highlighted by the report and said:

“Business can have a significant impact on wider issues such as occupational segregation – especially in future skills sectors – as well as looking at whether their own people management practices are fair and inclusive to ensure women can reach their potential and rise to the top ranks.”

Experts call for tougher workplace regulations on discrimination, saying that poor results should be a ‘big wake-up call’ for the government.

Sam Smethers - Chief Executive of the Fawcett Society - also called for stronger employment regulations to tackle discrimination, stating that if they suspect they are being discriminated against, women need to be given the right to know what a male colleague is earning. She said:

“We need a strategy for gender equality that addresses intersectional inequality, recognising that women of colour are doubly disadvantaged, tackles the underlying causes of the gap and removes the barriers to women’s economic and political participation. The fact that the UK has slipped down the international league tables and it will take generations to close the gender pay gap should act as a big wake-up call for the government.” 

The 2019 Times and Bond Solon Annual Expert Witness Survey - involving 569 expert respondents - was recently conducted online.

On being informed that there have been several cases over the past 12 months in which the expert witness has not understood the basic requirements of the role, the survey asked whether judges should have the power to permanently disqualify these experts. Nearly 60 per cent of respondents stated that they wanted all experts to understand their role and agreed that those who do not have the necessary understanding should not continue and that judges should permanently disqualify these experts.

When questioned regarding an expert’s non-qualification to give expert evidence and asked whether instructing solicitors should be liable for costs when they fail to exercise due diligence, around 70 per cent of respondents considered the instructing solicitor should be liable for costs under these circumstances. 44 per cent of respondents stated that they had come across experts who profess expertise despite not being qualified, or the area concerned does not warrant expertise.

The report stated that an ‘out of date or unsuitable expert witness is a dangerous expert witness’ and can create considerable risks for the instructing party – and it was suggested that a solicitor, before formally instructing an expert, should check that the expert is registered with their professional body confirming that the expert is up to date with continuing professional development; look for consistency in the way the expert’s details are presented to the public and - If reports are not court compliant - the instructing solicitor will need to guide the expert.

Of respondents surveyed, 20 per cent said that retired professionals should not continue to act as expert witnesses as the longer the potential expert has not been in day by day practice in a field, the greater the difficulty is to instruct that expert.

The survey showed that 61 per cent of all the experts surveyed act as expert witnesses in personal injury cases – making personal Injury cases a major area of work for expert witnesses.

51 per cent of experts stated that they acted in legal aid cases - but experts are not obliged to accept legal aid cases and in fact, 73 per cent of the experts surveyed indicated that they would not continue working in legal aid cases if expert witness fees were further reduced, meaning that expert evidence might not be available any more for legal aid cases.

Of the experts who act in personal injury cases, 31 per cent surveyed said that over the past 12 months they had been asked or felt pressurised to change their report in a way that harms their impartiality – as opposed to experts in other fields where it was only 14 per cent.

One expert reported that:

“A lawyer completely changed my report, put in extra paragraphs and deleted great chunks in order to make my opinion suit his client. We have historically been sending reports as Word documents, but now we will send everything as PDF files which cannot be altered.”

Almost 40 per cent of the experts surveyed indicated that the number of instructions they had received have gone up, whereas 36 per cent said the number had stayed the same. 70 per cent stated that their rates remain the same as last year.

On Thursday 12th December, Southwest Airlines announced that they would share compensation received from Boeing regarding the grounding of the 737 MAX with their employees.

While the total amount of compensation awarded remains confidential - as does what percentage of it that Southwest employees will benefit from - the airline are showing a $125 million charge as employee compensation in financial statements. The money will be given to the carrier’s employees in the form of incremental profit sharing. 

Southwest’s Board Chairman and Chief Executive, Gary Kelly, stated:

“Our people have done an incredible job managing through the MAX groundings, while providing the highest levels of customer service and one of the best operational performances in our history.”

He added:

“On behalf of the Southwest board of directors, we are grateful to our employees for their extraordinary efforts throughout the year and are pleased to share proceeds from our recent agreement with Boeing.”

In their investor update published on October 24th the US airline, a low-cost carrier, estimated a loss of $435 million in operating income through September and reported a loss of $210 million in revenue, which they attributed to the MAX grounding.

The airline, who operate a fleet of around 750 aircraft, only fly Boeing 737’s and about 34 of these are the 737 MAX model. They currently have around 260 MAX’s on order and so while the carrier continues to negotiate with Boeing for further damages, they could also accept other forms of compensation that Boeing may offer such as preferred delivery slots, or upgraded aircraft features. However, to date there is still no definitive news on when the MAX will be back in service with FAA Administrator Steve Dickson confirming on 11th December that the Max would not be cleared to fly until sometime in 2020.

In total, Boeing have apparently set aside $5 billion to compensate airlines for MAX related costs, as well as around $50 million to compensate families involved in the Lion Air crash in October 2018 and the Ethiopian Airlines crash in March 2019.

New data recently published by the CIPD has shown that some employers could be relying on ill-equipped line management to speak to their teams about pay processes - resulting in a difference between their perception of pay in the organisation and that of the workforce.

The 2019 Reward Management survey reports that 75 per cent of HR professionals think that workers in their organisation are paid fairly - according to their experience and achievements. However, only 33 per cent of the workers agree and only 51 per cent think their own salary is fair.

Of the HR respondents, 86 per cent agree that their Chief Executive is paid about right - against only 20 per cent of the rest of the workforce.

Only a third of organisations were encouraging line managers to talk to their teams about pay fairness and of those who had, 60 per cent of the employees say their manager had done a poor or very poor job of communicating with them.

Charles Cotton - Senior Reward and Performance Adviser at the CIPD - said:

“Failure to be transparent about pay can make staff feel that they are being kept in the dark and feed a perception of unfairness. There’s a real opportunity for organisations to do a lot more around communicating their pay policies to staff, and encouraging line managers to talk to their teams about it, so staff understand how and why such decisions are made. But communication is only part of the story and won’t ensure people are paid fairly in the first place. Continued scrutiny over executive pay and gender pay gap reporting shows this is still an issue which many organisations are wrestling with, so businesses need to be on the front foot when it comes to understanding and assessing pay.”

Of the 60 per cent of HR respondents who state that their organisation talks about the fairness of pay processes and outcomes, only 30 per cent have a clear definition of fairness. Just 10 per cent of the workforce says that their line manager always or often speaks to them about fairness and it was found that only 23 per cent of employers survey their employees to check whether they think pay processes are fair, whilst only 39 per cent of employers have carried out an equal pay audit in the past three years to ensure they are complying with the law.

Just over half of HR teams inform staff about the factors they consider when deciding to increase employee salaries and around 50 per cent explain how their grade structures work - whilst 45 per cent tell employees what they need to do to increase their pay.

In 2020, new corporate reporting requirements will come into full force and are likely to reveal further opportunities to improve fairness in pay processes and outcomes.

Publicly listed companies with more than 250 employees are required to report the pay ratio between their CEOs and full-time workers - explaining how the pay-setting process for top executives compares with their pay policy for the wider workforce. In addition, they are also required to show how they take employee views and interests into account in business decision-making - to include views on how people are paid.

Recent statistics suggest that stress at work remains a growing problem.

In the UK, around 15.4 million working days each year are lost to stress, depression or anxiety, which accounts for 57 per cent of all absences and costs UK employers between £33bn and £42bn a year.

In addition to the financial costs, the undesirable effects on business of mental ill-health are employee absence; staff turnover; loss of skills and legal and reputational risks.

However, in a recent poll by of more than 1,700 workers with mental health problems – by the charity Mind – it was found that more than two in five people did not realise that they could be missing out on legal protections and helpful adjustments at work.

Of those polled, 44 per cent were unaware that they could be classified as having a disability if their ability to carry out day-to-day tasks were affected and their condition had lasted for - or was expected to last for - 12 months. After hearing the definition of disability - under the Equality Act 2010 - 54 per cent felt they met the criteria.

Vicki Nash - Head of Policy and Campaigns at Mind - stated:

“Among those of us with mental health problems, there is a huge gap in awareness that we could be covered by the Equality Act. This next government must commit to clarifying the definition of a disability under the Act. This will help to protect from discrimination in the first place and - if they are discriminated against on the grounds of a health condition - enable them to challenge this.”

She added that:

“....with the right support, those of us with mental health problems can and do make a valuable contribution to the workplace.”

Rachel Suff - Senior Employment Relations Adviser at the CIPD - said the survey’s findings showed the need for more education and awareness around mental health in the workplace. She said:

“The law doesn’t necessarily help because there’s quite a high bar in terms of a mental health condition meeting the definition in the Equality Act.”  

Stating that organisations should not wait for an employee’s condition to be classified as a disability before making reasonable adjustments, she added:

“It’s good practice for employers to make changes to support people’s mental health at work. Most conditions are at the lower end of the mental health spectrum, and just small changes to how they work can make a big difference to their ability to manage that.”

Emma Bartlett - Partner at Charles Russell Speechlys - said:

“Employers do not always understand that they do not need to have been told by the employee about their condition or have received a formal diagnosis for the employer to be fixed with knowledge that the employee should have the benefit of reasonable adjustments and protection from discrimination arising out of their condition.”

She added that every case should be treated individually, stating:

“Normal day to day activities for one person may not be the same for another, so you have to focus on how it affects each individual.”

David Price - CEO of Health Assured - said:

“If an employer were to take action against an employee for reaching pre-set absence levels, or deny an employee an attendance bonus based on a number of absences which included those related to mental health, there is a risk of a discrimination claim. Because of this, employers should think carefully when treating mental health days in the same way as all other sickness absence.”

 After a Reed HR survey found that a quarter of UK HR professionals do not feel included in strategic business decisions, a poll by Natural HR - a UK software company - of 219 HR professionals, found that 22 per cent of those professionals did not think their role was valued.

The reasons given by the 22 per cent of the respondents not feeling as though they are valued are not having a seat in board meetings and not being considered as part of the senior team in organisations - leaving them with a lack of respect for their profession. It also appears that many HR professionals believe that they are viewed as merely an administrative function.

Recruitment and retention of staff was found to have been seen as a priority for next year by 68 per cent of the HR respondents, whilst 42 per cent cited recruitment as the area of their work they found most challenging. A third of those surveyed found employee retention a challenge, with 36 per cent saying they struggled with engagement and experience. 

Tom Hadley - Director of Policy and Campaigns at the Recruitment and Employment Confederation - said:

“Good recruitment helps employers find the right person for the right job and actively ensures they settle in well. This involves advertising to a wide and diverse pool of candidates and selecting people based on skills. Recruitment professionals can help businesses get the hiring and on-boarding process right and this can make all the difference when it comes to employee retention and productivity.”

Sarah Dowzell - HR Specialist and Co-Founder of Natural HR - said:

“A recent survey undertaken by HR tech platform Natural HR has revealed only 78 per cent of HR professionals feel that HR is valued within their business, leaving nearly a quarter of those surveyed feeling as though it is not. The core tasks of HR professionals cover an array of activities from hiring the right talent; ensuring meaningful professional development; considering staff well-being, to acting as an internal coach. With recruitment and retention of people increasingly a top priority for businesses, it is shocking that so many HR professionals still don’t feel included in top level strategic decision making. A HR strategy must be aligned with the overarching business strategy. The more the administrative elements of HR roles can be undertaken by tech solutions, the more time can be spent on the important strategic role of HR – and hopefully, the old-fashioned perception of the profession can become a thing of the past.”

An NHS secretary - Eileen Jolly - who was sacked at 86 years of age has won a payout in an age discrimination case. She was awarded £200,000 which the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust agreed to pay, despite saying that it was disappointed by the outcome.

Mrs Jolly, who had been employed at the hospital since 1991, was dismissed from the NHS trust in 2017 after she failed to upload details of cancer patients awaiting non-urgent breast reconstruction surgery into a new database. The result of her omission was that three patients waited 52 weeks from the date of their initial referral for surgery - a breach of NHS guidelines. The NHS trust also described Mrs Jolly as being stuck in old secretarial ways.

The Reading Employment Tribunal, led by Judge Andrew Gumbiti-Zimuto heard that in 2015 Mrs Jolly had been given a short training session on the computer when the waiting lists were made electronic. However, she told the tribunal that she had not been properly trained to use the new system, which led to mistakes being made.

Mrs Jolly also claimed that there had been unpleasant remarks made about her age and health - in particular questioning her ability to walk the length of the building. She told the tribunal that, despite suffering a cardiac arrest in 2006, she had not been off sick. She said:

“I felt as though it had been assumed that at my age and because of my health I was a liability and incapable of change, and had to go. It had been my intention to continue to work for as long as I could – until I was at least 90 years old.” 

In 2016 she was suspended and described being humiliated when she was told to collect her things and escorted from the premises. In 2017, she was dismissed for a "catastrophic failure in performance".

Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto agreed that her dismissal had been unfair and “tainted by discrimination”. He also found that her grievances had not been properly addressed and that sufficient training had not been offered to her.

His judgment stated:

“The claimant had not been carrying out the role in the way that the respondent wished the role to be carried out and had not understood the nature of the role that she was expected to perform by the respondent.

Instead of the respondent addressing that issue directly and either training her and then requiring her to do the role as directed the claimant was dismissed. This was because of her age.”

Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust was ordered to pay Mrs Jolly £200,000 within 14 days. A spokeswoman for the trust stated:

"The trust has complied with the tribunal's order to pay the agreed sum to Mrs Jolly by way of compensation. Given that these proceedings have been upsetting and distressing for all concerned, the trust is pleased this matter is now concluded and parties can move on. It wishes Mrs Jolly all the best for the future.”

The statement also said:

“The trust is disappointed by the outcome in this case. However, the trust has and operates an equal opportunities policy and, following a detailed review of the case, is taking steps ensure that lessons are learned and that all reasonable steps are taken to prevent any form of discrimination from occurring in the workplace.”

In November 2019, a federal court in Missouri upheld the jury verdict in favor of employee Linda King, who claimed that she was wrongfully discharged from her job with Southwest Foodservice Excellence, LLC.

The matter was originally tried by a jury who returned a verdict in King's favor and awarded her $156,500 in actual damages and $75,000 in punitive damages. The defendant - Southwest Foodservice - renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law and requested a new trial, which was denied. The employer’s contention that her recovery for emotional distress damages was barred by the state’s workers’ compensation law, was also rejected.

Whilst employed by Southwest Foodservice, Ms. King had been summoned by the Circuit Court of St. Louis City to undertake grand jury service. After being selected as a grand juror, she informed her employer of the days she was required to serve. Jury service - under Missouri law - was a protected status subject to non-discrimination protections and the defendant was aware of this.

Shortly after Ms. King began her jury service in early August 2014, she was informed by an HR representative that she would have to choose between her job and her jury duty.

On August 21, Ms. King's immediate supervisor issued a disciplinary notice for her failure to perform a specific job on August 14 - a day the supervisor was aware that Ms. King was serving on the grand jury. This supervisor wished to terminate Ms. King for this incident but the request was denied by the food director.

Ms. King’s supervisor then began to keep a detailed list of food deficiencies that occurred during the period of Ms. King's jury service. She did not, however, counsel Ms. King regarding these deficiencies - nor did she attempt to address any misconceptions regarding who had food-ordering responsibilities, as both Ms. King and a co-worker were subsequently found to be under the impression that the supervisor was equally responsible. The supervisor also complained that Ms. King's absence from the school during jury duty caused her to spend too much time at Ms. King's school, resulting in the other schools she supervised possibly being neglected.

On October 15, the supervisor - with the assistance of HR - prepared Ms. King's termination notice and this was then presented to the food director, together with the prepared list showing the food-deficiencies. The director signed the termination notice - without verifying who was responsible for placing the food orders - and Ms. King was given the notice on October 20. It was at this time that Ms. KIing found out that she was being held solely responsible for placing the food orders during her jury service, which completed in November 2014.

The District Judge, Catherine D. Perry stated - that from the evidence presented - “a reasonable juror could conclude that King's service on the grand jury was a contributing factor in defendant's termination of her employment, and that King showed with convincing clarity that such wrongful termination was, at the very least, in reckless disregard for her rights and interests, especially given defendant's knowledge that jury service is a protected status. Accordingly, given the evidentiary support for the jury's verdict, I must deny defendant's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on the bases claimed. I will also deny defendant's related request that I vacate that portion of the jury's verdict awarding King punitive damages.”

The government backed Hampton-Alexander review 2019 - just released - has found that 2019 was the most robust for women in senior leadership since 2011, when targets were set. The review is committed to achieving 33 per cent of women on boards and in leadership teams of FTSE 100 and 250 companies, by 2020.

Sir Philip Hampton - Chair of the Hampton-Alexander Review - stated:

“This is the penultimate Hampton-Alexander Report and we enter our final year with great momentum behind us. If this progress continues into 2020, our targets for Women on Boards will be met. Whilst this is a key indicator of change at the top, strengthening the number of women in executive positions is critical to achieving long-term gender balance. We are still a long way from reaching the target for women in senior leadership roles below board level. Unless half of all appointments made this year go to women – our target for 2020 is not going to be met.”

Eight years ago female representation on boards stood at 12.5 per cent for the hundred biggest UK-based companies. The percentage now is 32.4 per cent - meaning that the FTSE100 is likely to meet the target set by the review.

The latest report has also shown that women hold 29.6 per cent of all FTSE 250 board positions - witnessing a rise up from 24.9 per cent last year - meaning that the FTSE 250 can also meet the 33 per cent deadline provided sustained effort is made.

In the FTSE150 and 250 there are now only two all-male boards but still forty four all-male executive committees. However, there are still dozens of companies who have progressed to no further than a single woman on the board.

More concerning - according to the Mail on Sunday - there are only thirteen female CEOs at FTSE 250 level, with a few number of chairs.

Charlotte Valeur - Institute of Directors Chairperson - stated:

“Women must be trusted not just to be part of the discussion, but also to lead it.”

She added that big firms should....... “take a long hard look at their recruitment processes and ask what barriers are being put up that prevent women and ethnic minorities from advancing both in executive roles and to the board.”

Denise Wilson OBE- Chief Executive, Hampton-Alexander Review - said:

“There are over 900 women now serving on FTSE 350 boards, providing an ever-increasing pool of women with substantial board experience, yet only 25 women have been appointed into the Chair role, even fewer as women CEOs and showing little sign of change. Strong foundations have been laid and significant progress has been made since the journey began in earnest in 2011. The very senior jobs were always going to be the hardest of challenges, however a stronger focus is now required at every stage of the appointment process to address the reasons why top jobs aren’t going to women.”

Chris Cummings - Chief Executive of the Investment Association - said:

"Great progress is being made with Women on Boards, but it's time for us to aim higher. This pace of change now needs to extend beyond the board to senior executive leadership roles if businesses are to demonstrate their diversity at all levels. The research is clear - firms with diverse boards and management teams make better decisions, drive innovation and outperform their less diverse peers."

Three members of Congress, Rep. Rick Larsen (WA-02), Rep. Don Young (AK) and Rep. Angie Craig (MN-02) recently introduced bipartisan legislation to promote career opportunities in the transportation industry.

The Promoting Service in Transportation Act (H.R. 5118) will establish a series of U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) public service announcement campaigns to raise awareness about careers in transportation. $5 million in funding will be provided over the six fiscal years between 2021-2026, with $30 million allocated in total.

The campaigns will include digital and print media public service announcement campaigns to promote career opportunities for pilots, safety inspectors, mechanics and technicians, air traffic controllers (ATC), flight attendants and other road and rail professionals.

Selena Shilad - Executive Director of the Alliance for Aviation Across America - stated:

“Our country is facing a critical shortage of aviation professionals, with an estimated need of over 131,000 commercial pilots, 60,000 business aviation pilots, and 21,000 civil helicopter pilots in the coming years. For this reason it is credibly important that we foster enthusiasm in flying and ensure that the many talented, skilled workers across our country are aware of the vast opportunities that exist within the aviation industry.”

Rick Larsen - a senior member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee - added:

“As demand continues to grow, it is important all Americans are aware of the career opportunities available in the transportation sector to grow the next generation workforce. I will continue working in Congress to make sure all Americans have access to good-paying jobs and more skills training to succeed.”

Additionally, the campaign is aimed at improving the issue of diversity in the workforce - for example over 90% of professional airline pilots and truck drivers are white males. Therefore it is hoped that the campaign will help the gender, race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status of the workforce in this sector to become more diverse.

On this issue, Angie Craig - a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee - said:

“The transportation industry faces workforce and diversity challenges that we must address now."

The bill is supported by many professional transportation Associations including - but not limited to - the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), Association of Flight Attendants (AFA-CWA), Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA) and the Helicopter Association International (HAI).

New research from CV-Library, the UK’s leading independent job board, has revealed that 27.2 per cent of senior leaders in the UK admit to feeling lonely in the workplace.  

The research - which polled 300 senior members of staff across the UK - found that senior leaders are the most likely to feel lonely with 40.8 per cent claiming that other people’s attitudes towards them changed after they moved into their management role. 

Having little in common with their colleagues was cited by 42.7per cent of those questioned, working in an office on their own by 34.4 per cent and 24.4 per cent thought it was because their colleagues are much younger than them.

More than 50 per cent claim that their home life has suffered as a result of their work, with a further 54.7 per cent saying that it’s not worth it to be where they are now professionally. 

When asked what they think are the best ways for employers to prevent loneliness at work, 49.2 per cent of senior leaders suggested putting appropriate support in place; 34.5 per cent having more office socials; 32.9 per cent hiring a diverse team; 28.2 per cent constructing an open-plan office and 27 per cent improving the on-boarding process.

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

“Reaching the top is an attractive goal for many, but even the most senior employees need support in the workplace, particularly if you’re working long hours and shoulder huge levels of responsibility. Naturally, as a senior member of staff, you’ll have to remain neutral towards your teams, but this can result in feelings of exclusion. Moreover, you’ll have a responsibility to provide support to your employees, but don’t forget about yourself! Seek help from other senior members of staff, especially in the transition period after being promoted.”

He continued:

“As a senior employee, you may feel unable to talk about any feelings of loneliness because of your status in the company. To combat this, it’s important to prioritise your own wellbeing and work closely with other leaders. Whether you organise company socials to blow off some steam away from the workplace, or have regular catch ups with fellow manager, it will help you to forge stronger working relationships. In turn, this should encourage a more open and supportive atmosphere.”  

According to a new study from UK-based independent business operations consultancy firm Managementors, supervisors in the UK spend more than half their working day on meetings and admin - leaving little time to manage performance.

Data is based on an average working day of seven and a half hours and is taken from interviews with, and observations of the working practices of over 100 supervisors and managers in a range of UK businesses.

The largest amount of time was spent on meetings and doing unspecified tasks - almost three hours every day on average. Nearly one hour and a half was spent on email and admin and almost two hours each day on doing the tasks meant to be carried out by those that report to them. Fifty minutes each day was spent on passive management - dealing with issues that employees require help with.

The research shows how supervisors - across all industries - are spending their working day and how it impacts on productivity. It was found that supervisors spend less than half an hour each day on active management i.e. the planning, strategy and active direction of staff that is so important to productivity and achieving business goals.

David Beggs - Practice Director at Managementors - stated:

“The reality is that supervisors are doing very little active management of employees in the field, and even worse are spending a major portion of their working day on a variety of tasks which, potentially should be done elsewhere in the business. Such tasks do need to be done, but for supervisors to be doing them raises important questions about productivity and what constitutes leadership in modern business.”

When questioned about the time spent by the supervisors, it did not compare with what they actually thought they spent on the tasks. They believed they spent just under two hours and a quarter each day on active management - but stated that ideally they would like to spend 45 minutes longer than that.   In reality, they were found to spend only an average of 27 minutes.

The research also covered how management required time to be spent - more on active management and less on administrative tasks. It was felt that supervisors should be spending around 40 per cent of their time on active management each day.

David Beggs commented:

“There’s a clear disconnect between what people think they spend their working day doing and what they actually do. Productivity depends on many things, such as strong leadership and providing clear direction and training to employees, but this is not happening as much as it needs to. People are spending far too long on meetings which have little output, email, admin and even stepping down to carry out the work of the people they are meant to be managing and it’s time for UK businesses to have a hard look at how they operate. There’s a longstanding issue with UK productivity and while some of that can be put down to how productivity is measured, it’s also true that as a collective economy we need to improve our outputs. A good way of starting this process is to look at the role of business leaders and assess how their time can be more productively spent.”

As a result of a poll of 2,400 people in the UK - conducted by investment company Fidelity International - it was found that despite the fact that most people expect to retire at an average age of 66 years, 45 per cent expected to work past the age of 70 and nearly 9 per cent planned to keep working into their 80’s.

Maike Currie - Director for workplace investing at Fidelity International - said:

“With 60 now widely seen as ‘the new 40’, today’s so-called retirees are healthier, living longer, and retiring at different ages. So, it is unsurprising that people have no desire to retire and are defying traditional expectations. The economic power of those who were once considered ‘past it’ can now be felt everywhere. This will transform the jobs market as more people work into their late 60s or even early 70s and they will have a growing influence on consumer spending as pension reforms allow them to cash in their lifetime savings and spend the money as they wish.”

As over half of adults plan to carry on working in their retirement, experts highlight the importance of employers giving workers control over how they choose to retire.

Jill Miller - Diversity and Inclusion Adviser at the CIPD - said:

“Giving people choice about how they choose to work is important. Many people no longer want cliff-edge retirement where you just stop working one day. Instead, many are choosing phased retirement.”

She added that as - according to government findings - the employment rate for those aged between 50 and 64 has grown from 55 per cent to 70 per cent over the past 30 years, so employers must ensure they’re prepared for this ageing workforce, saying:

“With an ageing population, more people are working longer and employers need to ensure their people management approach fits the needs of a multi-generational workforce. Older workers bring with them a wealth of both job and life experience, but employers need to make people want to stay. For example, can people work flexibly to balance caring responsibilities with work?”

The research by Fidelity International also shows that those with the highest household incomes - more than £50,000 - are more likely to plan to work in their retirement than those on lower incomes. People with a household income of more than £50,000 expect to retire at 65 - whilst for those earning under £50,000 the retirement age increases to 67 years.

As the government is unlikely to consider any further increases to the state pension age, people may face some significant challenges to ensure their finances are stable for when they retire.

Steve Webb - former Pensions Minister and Director of Policy at Royal London - stated that those who are better off might find it easier to secure a part-time role; change to being self-employed or become a member of a board in later life. He added:

“For those who are in good health and who enjoy what they do, carrying on working, perhaps with reduced hours, can be fulfilling and rewarding. But it’s important not to forget the large numbers of people who expect to work on not because they want to, but because they have to. A growing number of people will reach retirement without enough pension saving for a comfortable retirement and they may have to go on working long past the point when they would have wanted to stop.”

New research by Portafina - pensions advice specialists - has revealed that 10 per cent of workers are not aware if they have a pension from a previous job, meaning that 34m could lose out on millions of pounds by not tracking their old pension pots.

With regard to old pensions, 76 per cent of UK workers state that they are unaware of their value today. If not checked, high charges and poor performance could drastically reduce the amount in the pot when retirement is reached. Only 25 per cent of workers surveyed realise that on moving jobs a new workplace pension will be set up by the new employer - but they are responsible for managing their own old pots.

The problem of pensions being forgotten is expected to worsen as a result of auto-enrolment - as since this was introduced more workers are enrolling in pensions schemes, but were not found to understand their pensions any better.

In the research, it was found that 47 per cent of employees do not know how auto-enrolment works - with 1 in 7 stating that they did not know what it means.

A third of those surveyed were not aware of how much they paid monthly into their pension pot and had underestimated how large a pension pot they would require to attain a wage of £15,269 at retirement.

It was found that 71 per cent of pension holders in defined contribution schemes do not know what charges they are paying, despite the fact that by reducing the annual charge by 1per cent a year now, could mean over £27,000 extra in the pot - and improving their pension performance by 2 per cent a year now could eventually mean £54,000 more in the pot.

Of workers questioned about seeking financial advice when it comes to moving or consolidating an old workplace pension, 90 per cent stated that they had not done so and 77 per cent stated that they unaware of the guarantees and benefits attached to a past pension.

Jamie Smith-Thompson - Managing Director at Portafina - said:

“Moving into the digital world is a big positive step forward for the pension industry. Initiatives like the Pensions Dashboard currently being developed by the government will go a huge way towards helping the nation to better manage and keep on top of their pension savings.

While it’s great that there are more online options emerging for moving or consolidating pensions, it can come with huge risk. If it feels too easy to move your pension, such as only taking a couple of clicks to complete the process, then it’s time to think twice about whether this is the right move for your hard-earned savings.

How your pension will be invested, the fees charged, and how your new scheme compares to the old one, are all questions you should confidently know the answers to before making any decisions to jump ship from your current provider.

The bottom line is, it’s best to seek expert help before making any final decisions. Having all your pensions in one place can be very convenient and sometimes saves on charges. But depending on the pensions that you are consolidating, if you are not careful you could end up paying more in charges, losing valuable benefits and guarantees, or seeing your investments placed in funds that are not suitable for your goals.

A regulated financial adviser will analyse every aspect of your pensions, giving you all the facts you need to make an informed decision, unlike most combine-and-go online platforms. With something as valuable as your retirement savings, it makes sense to be absolutely sure.

According to a report by the Resolution Foundation think tank (an independent think tank focused on improving living standards for those on low to middle incomes) - after research into illegal work practices - it was found that one in twenty workers does not get paid holidays and one in ten does not get a payslip.

The Resolution Foundation found that workers over the age of 65 are most likely to not have paid holidays, despite a legal entitlement to twenty eight days a year. Younger workers - those aged 25 and under - are most likely to be paid less than the minimum wage, which is illegal. It has been suggested that this is a trend which may have been caused by the growth of the gig economy.

In addition, the research showed that workers in small firms, i.e. employing fewer than twenty five personnel; workers on zero-hours and those on temporary contracts are most likely to not get payslips and paid leave.

Lindsay Judge - Senior Economic Analyst at the Resolution Foundation - welcomed the government's efforts to strengthen the resources of bodies such as HM Revenue & Customs.

She said:

"The UK has a multitude of rules to govern its labour market, from maximum hours to minimum pay, but these rules can only become a reality if they are properly enforced. Labour market violations remain far too common, with millions of workers missing out on basic entitlements to a payslip, holiday entitlement and the minimum wage. Our analysis suggests that, while violations take place across the labour market, the government should also prioritise investigations into sectors like hotels and restaurants, along with firms who make large use of atypical employment contracts, as that's where abuse is most prevalent."

Lindsay Judge went on to say that UK workers relied on the Employment Tribunal system to rectify any unfairness and to challenge illegal practices. However, the workers most in need of redress were, in fact, those least likely to employ the system - the younger workers were shown to make fewer Employment Tribunal applications than any other age group, whilst managerial staff - who are less likely to be subject to labour market abuse - are amongst those most likely to resort to tribunal claims.

Laura Pidcock - shadow Business Minister - stated that she recognised that many people worked in illegal conditions and said:

“Behind the statistics are many hours of stressful and exhausting work, people's home lives being made so much harder than they need to be, an unchecked class of bad bosses and legions of workers who feel like they have no choice but to accept illegal poor conditions."

A spokesman for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy stated:

"We are extending state enforcement to cover holiday pay for vulnerable workers, as part of the largest upgrade to workers' rights in a generation.”

Most California HR professionals are familiar with requests from employees and former employees for copies of personnel records - as the right to inspect and obtain copies of certain records has been law in California for some time. Current and former employees - and their lawyers - have the right to request access to their personnel files and their payroll records.

Under California Labor Code Section 1198.5 employees have the right to inspect and receive a copy of their personnel records. These are records which show performance; have been used to determine an employee’s qualifications for promotion; additional compensation or disciplinary action - including termination.

Requests for records must be made in writing, within a strict time span and employers should provide the employee making the request with the appropriate form. Within 30 days of making the written request, the employee must be able to inspect their personnel file or be given a copy of it. Should a copy be provided, the employer may make a charge for the cost of copying the file.

The labor commissioner has given examples of information that can be requested - which includes employment applications; performance reviews; warning notices and attendance records, but specifically excluded is anything relating to any investigation of possible crime, references or any documents obtained before the employee was actually employed.

Employees also have the right - under Labor Code Section 226 - to inspect or receive a computer-generated record or copies of itemized wage statements received by the employee. As from January 1, 2019 employees now have the right to inspect or receive a copy of their records - as opposed to earlier when employers could require the employee to make their own copy.

As with personnel files, the employee can be charged for the actual cost of copying the records. Only 21 calendar days is allowed for the employer to provide the pay roll information - a shorter period than that applying to the provision of personnel records.

For failure to adhere to the strict timing code a fine of $750 can be made for each violation and the Private Attorneys General Act may provide for an additional penalty. In any lawsuit, a court can issue an injunction and require the employer to pay the employee’s attorneys’ fees and costs.

Under Labor Code Section 432, employers must - when so requested - provide job applicants, employees and former employees with a copy of anything they signed relating to the obtaining or holding of employment. This request need not be in writing and there is no specified time for delivery.

Employers are advised to send hard copy requiring proof of delivery and a covering letter detailing which documents are being sent in relation to the request received on a specified date. Plus, keeping an exact copy eliminates doubt and is also proof of what has been sent.

According to new research from HSBC, the average expat - by moving overseas - earns an extra £21,000 over their annual salary and after surveying 163 countries the best-paid staff were found in Switzerland, the US and Hong Kong.

The research - HSBC Annual Expat Survey - attracted a response from more than 22,000 people, most of whom were executives who already enjoyed a high level of income.

Of these respondents, 45 per cent said they got more money for the same job by moving abroad - whilst 28 per cent said they got promotion.

Andrew Talbot - who has been a certified financial planner for 18 years and currently works with Expat Financial Planning in Singapore - said:

“One year as an expat could be the financial equivalent of three years back home”.

John Goddard - Head of HSBC Expat - who is based in the Channel Islands and has himself worked overseas in Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe - said:

“It absolutely is life-changing. That extra income helps people prepare for their future life. Over a third say they were able to put money away for retirement. Another third say they used it get on the property ladder.”

When it comes to personal lives, it was stated that Singapore is considered the best country or territory in the world for education and 60 per cent of expat parents in Singapore found that their children’s health and well-being was better there than at home.

Citing the huge number of perks on offer, HSBC said:

“Singapore packs everything a budding expat could want into one of the world’s smallest territories.”

John Goddard added:

“A taste of life in a new location can be the key to unlocking your creative potential, finding the work/life balance you’ve been craving, or taking your career in a new direction.”

A further study - conducted by the regulated property buyer Good Move - identified how much professions are paid in the UK and compared this against countries which are popular with people choosing to emigrate. 

This study found that doctors can boost their yearly earnings by £118,675 by moving to America and nurses - by moving to Canada - can boost their salary by £40,000.

The five professions which could increase their annual salary the most by moving abroad are doctors; nurses; directors; secondary school teachers and HR managers - who could earn £33,088 more by moving to Australia.

Ross Counsell - Director at Good Move, a Property Buying Specialist - said:

“The volume of people using our service in order to move abroad is continuing to grow, with more and more people looking to sell their property quickly and head overseas. Our research provides valuable insight into why this trend is occurring. The potential to earn more money abroad, across a large span of countries, evidently has huge appeal to those working in the UK. People are always looking to improve their quality of life and for an increasing amount of people, this now means moving to a different company.”

Sheffield Employment Tribunal has ruled in the case of Mrs J McBride v Capita Customer Management Services, finding that Mrs Mcbride was indirectly discriminated against after her employer tried to change her role from a part-time to a full-time position.

Before transferring to Capita Customer Management Services, Mrs McBride had worked with a company called Ventura – commencing her employment on 15 March 1999. Her position was that of Head of Quality and Compliance.

In April 2015 she started maternity leave, returning to work on 24 April 2017 as Implementation Manager, within a partnership deal she had previously worked on.

On 28 September 2017 – as a result of Mrs McBride having difficulty with the health of two of her children – she submitted a request to Mr Lovell, her Line Manager, requesting flexible working. This was refused.

In October of that year, Mr Lovell informed Mrs McBride there was the possibility of a job share and Mrs McBride accepted this proposal. On 2 November, Mr Lovell wrote to her confirming that she would be employed on a permanent part-time basis – but on a different project. 

However, Mrs McBride claimed that by December Mr Lovell had given her and the other employee sharing the job individual responsibility for separate projects and work streams - effectively weakening the original arrangement.

Mr Lovell told the tribunal that he had had to review the make-up of his team to deal with the requirements of a new initiative implemented by Capita - and to ensure that business hours were covered, all roles within his team would need to be carried out on a full-time basis. He also stated that he had previously observed risks and problems with the job share - but did not provide any evidence to substantiate this.

Mrs McBride felt the job share had not been adequately tested before the roles and workload were reorganised. She felt that the reasons given for not considering part-time working were not being based on a fair or reasonable benchmark - she believed a part-time or job share arrangement would work if the workloads were allocated appropriately.

On 30 April 2018 Mrs McBride was informed that all roles would be full time and she was invited to a consultation meeting to take place on 2 May 2018. She also attended redundancy meetings in May and June to seek alternative posts but she rejected all the positions offered as they were full time.

On 15 June 2018, Mrs McBride was given a formal notice of redundancy and despite her appealing against the decision, her redundancy was upheld on 16 July 2018. After working her notice period, her employment was terminated on 6 September 2018, resulting in her bringing claims of unfair dismissal and indirect sex discrimination on 28 November 2018.

In upholding the claims of unfair dismissal and indirect sex discrimination, Employment Judge Robert Little stated that Capita had “endeavoured to distance itself from the part-time/full-time dichotomy” and stated that a reasonable employer would test whether or not making Mrs McBride’s job full time would ensure the role worked most effectively. He added:

“We conclude a reasonable employer would have given the job share a fair trial period, respecting the detailed plans that the two senior job-sharing employees concerned had prepared and which plans presumably had at least tacit approval from the employer.”

Andrew Willis - Head of Legal at HR-inform - said the ruling demonstrated to employers that the particulars of flexible working arrangements should be fully considered before a decision is made on their feasibility. He stated:

“As seen here, if an employer feels that the job share situation is not working in their company, they should be prepared to provide valid business reasons for this. Simply informing employees that they will no longer be able to job share, without justification and not addressing their arguments against such a decision could quickly leave a company open to an unfair dismissal claim if the employees have the length of service.”

A survey of 502 IT decision makers from different UK firms and carried out by Censuswide on behalf of tech jobs board CWJobs, has found that 68% of UK business leaders believe that employees with technology skills - such as coding and cybersecurity - are more valuable than those with traditional skills such as maths and science.

It was also found that 53% did not think children were taught enough tech specialisms at school – with 71% of businesses urging candidates to learn tech specialisms in order to further their careers.

The survey also found that 73% of employers felt that tech education needed to happen at either primary or secondary school level and, in order to help close the tech skills gap, 86% of businesses would consider partnering with a school or college.

Dominic Harvey - Director at CWJobs - said:

“The UK is facing a skills crisis and those with tech specialisms on their CV are being sought after by all companies, now more than ever. In order to plug that gap, businesses are calling for tech to be given more of a prominence in the school curriculum. What’s clear is that learning a tech skill isn’t just something that’s relevant for one role or one industry, but the entire UK workforce needs to be embracing it if the country is to remain competitive on the world stage.”

Tech skills can put jobseekers high on the hiring list as 80% of employers stated that having a tech specialism is an important factor in their hiring decision and 63% said that they would hire someone with a tech specialism over a candidate without one – with 64% giving their reason for this as the fact that the candidate would be able to train others.

Cyber security was cited by 79% of those polled as being the tech specialism most in demand.

Of London’s employers, 73% said skills around the Internet were important for their employees to have and in Birmingham, 54% think coding is a vital skill.

Within current UK workforces, 44% had Cloud skills - the most prevalent amongst employees, with Cyber security next at 43% but the majority of the UK workforces had no specific skill present.

Top suggestions for remedying the lack of tech skills in future job candidates were increasing training programmes - cited by 52% of those polled, with 50% suggesting more government investment in the tech industry and 47% wanting more apprenticeships to be offered.

In the recent case in the Royal Courts of Justice concerning pension age equalisation, Lord Justice Irwin and Mrs Justice Whipple handed down a judgement that stated:

"The court was saddened by the stories contained in the claimants' evidence.

But, the court's role was limited. There was no basis for concluding that the policy choices reflected in the legislation were not open to government. In any event they were approved by Parliament.

The wider issues raised by the claimants about whether the choices were right or wrong or good or bad were not for the court. They were for members of the public and their elected representatives."

The court had been hearing the case of two claimants - Julie Delve and Karen Glynn - who had taken the Department for Work and Pensions to court for discrimination on the grounds of age and/or sex and also stating that the government failed to inform them of the changes due to the increase in women’s pension age.

Women who were born in the 1950s claim that the rise is unfair as they were not given sufficient time to make adjustments to cope with the years without a state pension. This is due to the rise of entitlement from 60 years to 65 years - in line with men - and will further rise to 66 years by 2020 and 67 years by 2028.

The arguments put forward by the claimants were that the changes offended the EU law principle of non-discrimination, but this was rejected by the court who held that the legislation under challenge was not within the scope of EU law.  It also rejected the argument that the European Convention of Human Rights had been breached - as case law maintains that a new legislative scheme which effects changes from a given date based on age can be introduced.

With regard to the argument of sex discrimination, the court ruled that ‘there was no direct discrimination on grounds of sex, because this legislation does not treat women less favourably than men in law, rather it equalises a historic asymmetry between men and women and thereby corrects historic direct discrimination against men.’

When handed down, the judgment drew gasps from the public gallery and later - on the court steps - the group Women Against State Pension Inequality chanted ‘shame on you’.

A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said:

"We welcome the High Court's judgment. It has always been our view that the changes we made to women's state pension age were entirely lawful and did not discriminate on any grounds."

Carlisle Employment Tribunal recently ruled in the case of Hoch v Thor Atkinson Steel Fabrications of Cumbria. The ruling stated that Mr W Hoch had been subjected to racial and homophobic abuse by his employer, leaving him terrified.

In the judgement, Judge Hodgson found that Mr Hoch, who worked as a buyer for Thor Atkinson Steel Fabrications in Cumbria from December 2014 until his resignation on 30 April 2018, was a victim of racial and homophobic comments.

Despite the employer - Mr Atkinson - insisting that the comments were office banter and a sign of a good working relationship, the Judge found that Mr Hoch had not encouraged the comments.

About one year after Mr Hoch has commenced working for the company, the owner - Mr Atkinson - began addressing Mr Hoch using racially offensive terms such as ‘foreign ****’ and the ‘N word’, with this form of address being used more frequently than his name. Other members of staff followed suit.

Mr Atkinson later began using homophobic slurs, such as ‘gay ****’ to address Mr Hoch, and told him to ‘get back to the Wendy house’ - which led to him being regularly teased by other colleagues about his appearance. 

In August 2017, Mr Hunter - a co-worker of Mr Hoch - posted a picture on Snapchat of Mr Hoch’s head superimposed onto the body of an emaciated black child. 

Throughout 2017 and January 2018 the slurs continued until in January, Mr Hoch recorded an exchange between himself and Mr Hunter. During this exchange, Mr Hoch was addressed with a string of racial and abusive slurs, despite Mr Hoch threatening to report Mr Hunter.

Mr Hoch resigned in April 2018 citing the fact that he frequently received abuse from Mr Atkinson and found it threatening, degrading, racist and a violation of his personal self - resulting in him having to seek medical attention.

Mr Atkinson offered Mr Hoch a grievance hearing which Mr Hoch declined on the grounds that he hearing would be conducted by the company’s HR representative - who was also Mr Atkinson’s wife.

Mrs Atkinson, who stated that she had more than 20 years experience in HR, then suggested that the hearing could be conducted by a cleaner employed by the company and who was a personal friend. Mr Hoch again declined.

The Employment Tribunal said that Mr Hoch’s rejection of both meetings was entirely reasonable and that the suggestion by Mrs Atkinson that either she or a cleaner conduct the grievance procedure was clearly wholly inappropriate. As a result of this, the claim of constructive unfair dismissal was also upheld as Mr Hoch had no access to a fair grievance process, which resulted in him taking a lower-paid job elsewhere. 

In evidence, Mrs Atkinson claimed to have processed written complaints about Mr Hoch’s difference in demeanour from other staff but could not produce the evidence. Accordingly, the Tribunal questioned how someone with her HR experience could misplace paperwork. The Tribunal found her to be totally lacking in any credibility.

Mr Hoch and his witness - another company employee - were found to have given straightforward evidence.

The Tribunal - in finding in favour of Mr Hoch - awarded him a total of £52,686, made up of the sum of £1,524 by way of basic award; the sum of £500 by way of compensatory award; the sum of £22,000 by way of injury to feelings award in respect of the harassment claim related to race; the sum of £5,000 by way of injury to feelings in respect of the harassment claim related to sexual orientation; the sum of £5,000 by way of aggravated damages; the sum of £4,500 by way of damages for personal injury; the sum of £10,804 by way of interest; the sum of £3,326 by way of grossing up of the taxable element of these awards and the sum of £2,032 in respect of the failure to provide written statement of particulars.

According to the latest Mercer National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans and based on responses from 1,511 US employers, Health Benefit costs will grow by 3.9 per cent in 2020.

Just 43 per cent of responding employers indicated that raising deductibles or otherwise cutting benefits to hold down cost in 2020, i.e. cost -shifting to employees, will be less of a factor than in recent years.

Since 2014, the amount costs would rise if employers renewed plans - without making changes - has gone down from 8 per cent to 5 per cent, taking off some of the pressure to make short-term cost cuts. Employers have been seeking to reduce costs by using improved health outcomes - such as targeted support for specific health conditions - and steering plan members to higher-quality providers.

Tracy Watts - Mercer’s National Leader for US Health Policy - stated:

“While the trend of low single-digit increases that began in 2012 continues, health benefit costs are still rising faster than overall inflation. And with the economy slowing, employers know they can’t afford to be complacent.”

She added:

“Rather than shift cost to employees, these approaches typically enhance the health care experience”.

To assist with higher quality health care, employers are carrying on adding to tech-enabled programs especially designed to help members with specific health issues - such as diabetes, insomnia and infertility. For instance, a program for diabetes can significantly improve quality of life whilst reducing trips to the emergency room - which are very costly.

In addition, 39 per cent of employers with 500 or more employees are also helping to ensure plan members receive high-quality care by providing access to a Center of Excellence for cardiology, bariatric surgery, cancer and other complex treatments - and 16 per cent say they guide employees to the Center with lower cost-sharing or even by requiring its use.

In 2019, 62 per cent of the respondents with 500 or more employees were found to be offering one or more of such targeted solutions - compared to 55 per cent in 2018 (40 per cent of these respondents say that all or most of their benefit offerings are accessible to employees on a single, fully integrated digital platform - most often through a smartphone app). This is compared to 34 per cent in Mercer’s 2018 survey.

Tracy Watts says:

“Employers have been experimenting with new approaches to tackle high costs, inconsistent quality, and low patient satisfaction. While there’s still so much more to do, it’s encouraging to see signs that health innovation may be starting to slow health cost growth – without shifting cost back to employees.”

Research from Milkround - a graduate jobs board site - has found that 83 per cent of graduates feel that there is a bias by employers towards alumni from Russell Group universities.

Between 29 April and 6 May 2019, Milkround asked the opinion of 7,000 graduates with further research on 1,500 recent graduates then being conducted between 11 August and 13 August 2019.

According to the recruiter, Milkround, those surveyed stated that graduates of Russell Group universities - which are considered to be the best 24 in the UK - are more likely to find work soon after graduating.

Four fifths of those graduating from Russell Group universities found full-time employment within just weeks of leaving, whilst only two thirds of those from the rest managed to do so. Of the graduates from Russell Group universities, 22 per cent reported failure to obtain employment, whilst this number increased to 30 per cent for non-Russell-Group graduates.

In addition, almost 44 per cent of those who have attended a non-Russell Group university reported having to make frequent financial sacrifices. According to the Department for Education, those attending Russell Group universities are much more likely to earn a higher salary than those who do not attend these institutions.

More than two-fifths of graduates are suggesting that employers should practice blind recruitment, the object being to create a diverse workforce and 24 per cent of this group is also calling for all prerequisites to be removed from the recruiting process - such as which university they had attended.

Another improvement in the recruiting process - recommended by 15 per cent of graduates - was offering more opportunities to candidates in disadvantaged areas; 12 per cent stated that candidates should be supported with travel costs to attend interviews and 8 per cent suggested that employers could help graduates to find affordable accommodation in close proximity to their new job.

Georgina Brazier - graduate jobs expert at Milkround - said:

“Most graduates are left with the same level of debt or student loans (and same tuition fees) regardless of what university they attended. The investment students make to attend university and gain their degree is substantial and whilst academic success should be applauded, some graduates feel the return on investment when entering the workplace should be fairer. There’s no doubt that Russell Group graduates make for excellent employees but it’s integral that companies do not rule out the chance to recruit fantastic grads from other universities.

Blind recruitment is necessary if businesses want to attract talent from the widest talent pool possible, with an excitingly diverse set of skills and intellects, rather than blocking perfectly good candidates because of their university or socio-economic background. It’s something that can be implemented quickly and simply for most companies. Moreover, many companies have made huge strides in increasing diversity in their recruitment and change is on the horizon.

The best way to help graduates believe that firms can offer them a future whatever their background, is to break down communication with students and have face-to-face conversations by visiting universities around the country. This dialogue is key to easing the anxiety graduates may encounter before applying for jobs, plus encourage students from diverse backgrounds to apply to firms they may have previously viewed as having a challenging entry point.”

Milkround infers that promising candidates are filtered out from those social and economic backgrounds less represented at the top universities but who also may be far more suitable and ready for work.

California’s governor - Gavin Newsom - has endorsed a landmark bill that requires companies like Uber, Lyft, Postmates and Amazon Flex to treat contract workers as employees, paying holiday and sick pay to the workers.

The bill was passed in the state Senate and despite their efforts to negotiate an exemption, will apply to app-based companies. It is expected to be signed into law, paving the way for California's 1 million gig workers to gain added rights next year.

Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez - who introduced the bill - said in a statement:

“Big businesses shouldn't be able to pass their costs onto taxpayers, while depriving workers of the labor law protections they are rightfully entitled to. This legislation is an important work in progress to provide certainty to California’s businesses, provide protections for California’s workers and guard the taxpayers from subsidizing unscrupulous corporations.”

If the bill is signed into law it could reshape the gig economy - which has been a cornerstone of the model adopted by ride-hailing firms and food delivery apps - with some estimates suggesting that costs for firms affected would increase by 30% if they have to treat workers as employees.

Opponents of the bill say it will hurt those people who want to work flexible hours but California state senator, Maria Elena Durazo, remarked that underpaying workers was not innovative.

An Uber spokesperson, in a statement, said:

"We support efforts to modernize labor laws in ways that preserve the flexibility drivers tell us they value, while improving the quality and security of independent work.”

Uber and Lyft have both proposed a referendum on the decision and in a statement after the bill was passed, a Lyft spokesperson said:

"We are fully prepared to take this issue to the voters of California to preserve the freedom and access drivers and riders want and need."

Uber and Lyft - who have hundreds of thousands of drivers in California - have said that contract work provides people with adaptability and will hurt those people who want to work flexible hours. They have also warned that recognizing drivers as employees could destroy their businesses.

Other states may be influenced by this bill as a coalition of labor groups is pushing for similar legislation in New York. New York City passed a minimum wage for ride-hailing drivers last year - but did not try to classify them as employees. In Washington State and Oregon similar bills were introduced but failed to advance. However, this bill could see them renewing impetus.

Previously, California has led the way in introducing legislation that has been adopted elsewhere in the US. This has worried the Western States Trucking Association - which represents truck drivers - many of whom are temporary and freelance workers.

Joseph Rajkovacz - Group Director of Governmental Affairs - told Reuters:

“People ought to be very concerned because what happens here does tend to get copied in other states."

Alex Rosenblat - a technology ethnographer at Data & Society and author of Uberland - thinks the bill is likely to pass in California’s Democratic-majority Senate and says:

“They are setting a powerful political example for how to regulate tech and try and create better conditions under which people work in the gig economy. And that’s pretty important.”

An expert witness was criticised by Mr Justice Martin Spencer in the case of Arksey v Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

Mrs Arksey brought a medical negligence action in relation to the NHS Trust’s failure to admit her to hospital after she had suffered from a cerebral aneurysm.  The Trust had admitted negligence - to a degree. It was denied, however, that the negligence made any causative difference to the outcome.

Mrs Arksey suffered a sentinel bleed from a cerebral aneurism whilst at home. She attended hospital, but was discharged. The following day she had a major haemorrhage which resulted in permanent brain damage. The Trust accepted that a breach of duty had occurred when she was not admitted.

The claimant’s case was that the hospital had a protocol for patients waiting to have a coil fitted in their aneurism, whereby they were admitted to hospital and given bed rest, blood pressure monitoring and appropriate hydration.

A consultant neurosurgeon, her expert witness, stated that - in his opinion it was uncommon for a new haemorrhage to occur whilst awaiting a coil in hospital and therefore, had she been admitted it was unlikely that it would have occurred.

The defence’s expert disagreed with this, stating that being hospital would not have avoided the haemorrhage the following day.

Mrs Arkseys’s case rested on expert evidence, but the judge found that this evidence was subject to some shortcomings. He remarked that her witness’s evidence “fell far below the standard to be expected of a reasonable, competent expert witness both in the preparation of his reports and in relation to his preparing to give evidence.”

“.....In addition, at one stage he even used an expletive, and there was a failure on his part to address the questions that he was being asked.”

The judge also criticised Mrs Arksey’s lawyers for not ensuring the expert’s report was completely compliant with Civil Procedure Rule 35. He commented that they allowed the witness “....to go into the witness box despite there being clear and obvious deficiencies in his written evidence, and this was something which should have been addressed by the lawyers long before the trial.”

Conversely, the judge found the defendant’s witness to be straightforward and reliable, having prepared reports which fully complied with Part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules. He stated that he preferred the defence witness’s evidence on every point of dispute and found for the defendant on the main issue.

In the case of British Airways Plc v Prosser it was found - on appeal - that a solicitor can recover VAT on a medical reporting organisation fee.

Mr Prosser - an employee of British Airways - was injured in an accident at work for which liability was admitted. Damages of just under £15,500 were agreed. British Airways Plc paid Mr Prosser’s fixed costs, but the parties were in dispute about the VAT element of the charges made by the medical reporting organisation, Absolute Medicals Limited. 

The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled that the District Judge had been entitled to allow the costs claimed by Mr Prosser - including the VAT - regardless of whether a medical reporting organisation, which the respondent's solicitors had commissioned to secure medical reports and records in relation to Mr Prosser’s claim, had actually been obliged to charge VAT.

British Airways Plc’s position was that VAT was not chargeable on the medical services provided because the providers were not VAT-registered, or their supplies were exempt. They pleaded that VAT should only be charged by Absolute Medicals Limited on the portion of the invoice which represented its administration fees. 

The disputed amount was extremely small but there was a wider issue at stake. Firstly, District Judge Temple - sitting in Newcastle County Court - held that VAT was recoverable on the entire Absolute Medicals Limited invoice and found that it would be:

“Entirely unreasonable and disproportionate to expect the claimant’s solicitors to start questioning the VAT status of the invoice that was provided to them by the medical agency. That, in my view, is going way too far on the expectations that are to be placed on a claimant’s solicitor.”

British Airways appealed and the appeal court, in dismissing their appeal, held that the District Judge had been entitled to take the view that the sums claimed in the relevant invoices had been reasonably and proportionately incurred and were reasonable and proportionate in amount - satisfying the requirements of CPR 44.3. It was stated that it was readily comprehensible that the District Judge had not thought that it had been incumbent on the respondent's solicitors to investigate the VAT position.

Guidance was given on when VAT could be charged in cases where solicitors, instructed on personal injury claims, had used the services of a medical reporting organisation. Where the amounts in issue are more significant, it will be incumbent on solicitors representing the receiving party to make more probing enquiries about the VAT position. 

Article by Lloyd Watson published in New law Journal 16.09.19

During my tenures both as an Airline Operations Director and a Director in a major Oil & Gas company - accountable for the aviation safety and assurance of a global operation - success in my view was making sure that every employee using aviation through the business went home safely to their families. In order to achieve this, we had to drive the highest risk management standards possible.

A Safety Management System (SMS) saves lives and prevents injuries. It provides a systematic way to identify hazards, control risks and assure that the risk controls are effective. The reactive, proactive and predictive management of hazards is essential. To be a credible aviation expert it is, in my view, necessary to be able to demonstrate mastery of this elusive subject.

An effective SMS should:

1. Define how the organisation is set up to manage risk.
2. Identify the risks inherent in aviation, the risks associated with a particular operation and implement suitable controls.
3. Implement effective communications across all levels of the organisation.
4. Implement a process to identify and correct non-conformities.
5. Implement a continual improvement process.

The terms hazards and risks appear interchangeable, but it is important to understand the difference. The identified hazard is something we want to prevent. The risk is a measure of likelihood and consequence and drives where we place our resources. If we measure a risk as high, the likelihood is that people will get hurt and we therefore need barriers (procedures, processes) to prevent the hazard. We also need to accept that the hazard may happen and additional barriers are needed to reduce the consequence.

Research on mental health issues, involving 2,000 UK employees of working age from around the country, has been conducted by Slater and Gordon - a UK and Australian law firm.

It was found that 14 per cent of employees - when they spoke to their boss about mental issues - were told to ‘man up’ and 13 per cent were either fired, demoted or forced to leave their job.

Many of the employees recognised that their mental health was not as good as it should be but neither was their employer’s attitude towards it - with 65 per cent of workers calling for the provision of more support.

On average, UK employees are taking four mental health days off each year, but are lying about the reason for doing so.

It was found that one in five workers in Yorkshire is faking a physical illness in order to take time off work for their mental health - over fears of being judged or sacked - which is over the national average.

Yorkshire was also above the national average for people staying in the job that was causing them stress, depression or anxiety, with 18 per cent of workers stating this was the case - compared to 16 per cent over the whole of the UK.

The biggest causes of stress were found to be unrealistic deadlines and pressure from above, with 25 per cent of workers admitting to leaving at least one job due to the negative impact it was having on their mental health. Weekends were not being used to relax as 37 per cent of staff stated that they were struggling to switch off from work and 60 per cent admitted to suffering from ‘Sunday dread’.

Peter Lyons - principal lawyer at Slater and Gordon - said that the firm regularly speaks to people who feel unable to work because of mounting stress and anxiety.

He added:

“We speak to a lot of people who are feeling so stressed and anxious with work they are forced into taking mental health days. Many isolate themselves, trying to work harder, which causes their personal lives to suffer and mental health to deteriorate further. The biggest thing we would say is don’t fight stress alone at work."

Louise Aston - wellbeing campaign director at Business in the Community - said that the research shows employers still need to do much more to support staff dealing with mental health problems adding:

“The statistics... show that there is a significant amount of work to be done to challenge the stigma of mental health in the workplace. Employers need to create the kind of culture where staff can be transparent about their mental health and they need to lead by example. Training and flexible working should be top considerations.

It’s OK not to be OK. We need an inclusive targeted approach to ensure that managers receive quality training, are knowledgeable about key issues in the world of mental health, and are aware of reasonable adjustments that can be made such as flexible working. The business case is clear in terms of showing a clear impact on productivity and staff engagement and retention, and we challenge all UK businesses to make good employee mental health a strategic priority.”

The risk to employers of taking employment actions when annoyed, rather than using reason - particularly when it comes to decisions about leaves of absence - was emphasized by a recent decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

In the case of DaPrato v. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, the Supreme Judicial Court recently upheld a $1.3 million damage award to Mr Daprato, an ex-employee of the Water Resources Authority.

The damages consisted of $19,777 in back pay and $188,666 for lost future income and benefits; $200,000 for emotional distress and $715,385 in punitive damages plus $208,443 in liquidated damages and $605,690 in attorney fees and costs.

Mr DaPrato was fired from his job as an Information Technology Manager - where he had worked for many years and received positive reviews - after taking a vacation to Mexico while he was on a medical leave of absence.

He had informed HR that he was postponing a previously scheduled knee surgery to have a tumor removed from his right foot and his surgeon provided a medical certificate. This stated that the employee would require between four to six weeks of FMLA leave following the surgery and that he would need to wear a medical boot before being able to undertake weight-bearing activities.

After surgery, Mr DaPrato wished to return to work earlier than previously thought, but on approaching HR he was informed that he could not do so without a certificate from his surgeon - who was not available for several weeks. Mr DaPrato then requested to be paid under the employer’s salary continuation policy.

During the interim period, Mr DaPrato - who had a vacation to Mexico previously planned - went on the trip but curtailed his activities.

On receiving his paycheck it did not show what he had been expecting under the salary continuation policy. He emailed the HR Director and requested an updated paycheck, also stating that he did not want any “surprises” when he came to request additional FMLA leave for the knee surgery. The HR Director did not provide this to the employee but forwarded Mr DaPrato’s e-mail to an HR manager stating:

“Is he serious?”

The HR Manager replied:

“OMG.”

HR learned that Mr DaPrato had made the trip to Mexico and launched an investigation. A video was obtained of Mr DaPatro lifting luggage out of a car and although he explained that he had tried to return to work early and that he was wearing a boot while engaging in the doubtful activities - and that these activities did not conflict with the limitations described in the medical forms from his surgeon - the HR Director, together with another person, recommended firing Mr DaPrato, which duly happened. The company was not given the FMLA forms.

The HR Director testified to her belief that an employee on FMLA leave could not take a vacation and the company’s lawyers showed photos of Mr DaPrato standing holding a large fish - despite the fact that the company had no knowledge of the photos when the termination took place.

The State Supreme Court gave the following analysis that an employer should use when deciding whether or not an employee has exploited his FMLA leave:

“We clarify today that an employer may validly consider an employee’s conduct on vacation—or, for that matter, anywhere—that is inconsistent with his or her claimed reasons for medical leave, when the employer has such information at the time the employer is evaluating whether leave has been properly or improperly used.

Here, [the plaintiff] took FMLA leave to allow his foot to recover fully from surgery. Such recovery could take place in a warm climate as well as in a New England winter. That being said, vacationing while on FMLA leave may take either permissible or impermissible forms. An employee recovering from a leg injury may sit with his or her leg raised by the sea shore while fully complying with FMLA leave requirements but may not climb Machu Picchu without abusing the FMLA process. Careful consideration of the reasons for the medical leave and the activities undertaken, including the timeline for rehabilitation and recovery, are required to determine whether FMLA leave has been abused.”

In reviewing the punitive and liquidated damages awards, the State High Court found that despite the employer being honest in its belief that it was complying with the FMLA, it was not objectively reasonable in its belief.

The Court found that the employer ignored Mr DaPrato’s medical records and FMLA application and made its decision based on “shock, outrage and offense” that the employee might request additional FMLA leave for knee surgery - as shown in the e-mail exchange between the HR Director and the HR Manager.

According to the latest industry trends report by the TMF Group (a leading provider of tax, accounting and HR services on an international scale), together with the Global Payroll Association, a lack of knowledge of local regulations is the biggest challenge faced by global and in-country payroll professionals.

Of the in-country payroll professionals surveyed, 41% reported a lack of knowledge of local payroll legislation and requirements, which was an increase of 6% on 2016.

Cited by 30.2% of those surveyed was a failure of in-house professionals to understand local rules and regulations and 29.6% said they were responsible for sourcing local payroll compliance information, but were often unaware of where to find it. These were the most common reasons given for payroll errors.

Of the payroll professionals surveyed a high amount - 69.4% - reported having no or fewer than 50% of global policies that apply to all payrolls.

The top four challenges faced by global and in-country payroll professionals were found to be lack of knowledge of local payroll legislation and requirements; vendor management; ability to find information on legislation and compliance and lack of consistency in policies and processes.

Deborah Williams - Global Head of Service Lines at TMF Group - said:

"The payroll industry is doing remarkable work despite facing increasingly complex rules and regulations. Nonetheless, the lack of local knowledge is of concern, as it has potential repercussions on compliance. Ultimately, it can affect the payment of staff and the performance of the business.

It is encouraging to see that four out of five payroll professionals value having an in-country contact - such as ourselves - who speaks the local language to help them communicate more effectively."

She added:

"The lack of consistency and control that results from not having robust payroll policies and processes in place should be of concern to organisations operating in multiple jurisdictions as this leads to errors in payroll processing and increases risk of non-compliance.

Our report with GPA also shows that many organisations are yet to adopt appropriate technology to support their payroll operations at an international scale. This contributes to the failure of policies and processes.

There is a growing trend among organisations towards the adoption of middleware to solve the problem of trying to deal with a multitude of systems and suppliers across different territories. We now see many organisations turning to payroll outsourcing to fulfil these needs."

Melanie Pizzey - CEO of the Global Payroll Association - stated:

"Our second annual survey with TMF Group indicates that professionals responsible for multi-country payroll delivery are facing increased complexities on many fronts. As a result, global payroll transformation is - or will become - a priority for employers so they can achieve consistency in their global operations, and maximise the return on their investments."

Whilst students might still be resting their hopes of landing their dream job on the A-level results they have received, employers are placing more emphasis on essential skills like teamwork, presenting and problem-solving - qualifications are only part of the requirement.

Because of the difficulty in assessing at the recruitment and selection stage, for the first time leading organisations in the education and employment sectors - the CIPD, The Careers & Enterprise Company, Business in the Community, the Gatsby Foundation, EY Foundation and the Skills Builder Partnership - have joined forces to agree a universal framework for these essential skills.

Already used by over 700 establishments, the new organisation will develop the ‘skills builder framework’ and set out the skills needed to thrive at work. In addition, it will show how these can be assessed and developed - and can be used by students, workers and employers.

The benefits of the ‘skilled builder framework’ will include making those charged with educating students aware of the skills that are required by employers - so ensuring that they are well equipped to join the workforce.

Also, it will help employers to hire the right people and provide the applicants with a better idea of the skills required for success in each role. Employers will be able to see what progression looks like for each of the different skills - thus enabling them to plan how to up-skill or re-skill their workers.

Given the increasing use of technology in the workplace, employers also recognise that whilst automation can replace repetitive roles, the more creative and complex tasks need to be performed by humans - and require the essential skills.

In his review of Modern Working Practices, Matthew Taylor - the RSA’s Chief Executive and champion of this project - called for a framework like this to be introduced. Employers from different sectors will be consulted about the framework and it will go through several development stages with the final version expected in spring 2020.  He said:

“With the nature of work continuing to evolve, it is challenging to predict exactly what technical abilities and skills will be needed in years to come. However, there’s growing recognition that the core skills, which are essentially human and behavioural, will be vital in almost all jobs and roles. The work of the task force is an important step towards achieving a common understanding of these essential skills from education right through to our workplaces. Establishing a framework and a common language for these skills is vital in creating the clarity we need to achieve more productive, high-performing workplaces that enable people whatever their backgrounds to feel engaged and empowered in their jobs.”

Sir John Holman - Chair of the Essential Skills Task Force - said:

“If you ask employers what they are looking for in the people they hire, they increasingly specify essential skills like communication and teamwork. They take for granted that employees must have sound educational qualifications and what makes the difference is the higher order essential skills which a machine cannot offer. By producing a universal framework of essential skills that are clear, measurable and authoritative, we will give employers a toolkit that they can use to select and train the employees they need to succeed in tomorrow’s workplace. Equally importantly, it will be a toolkit that schools, colleges and universities can use to help the students develop these skills.” 

Christine Hodgson - Chairman of Capgemini in the UK, Chairman of The Careers & Enterprise Company and a trustee of Business in the Community - said:

“As an employer, we want to make sure we’re recruiting people with the right skills to thrive in the 21st century workplace. But without a common language and shared understanding, it can be difficult for employers to identify easily or communicate what they’re looking for. And it’s harder for schools to make sure they’re focusing on developing the right skills. By helping schools, young people and employers to all pull in the same direction, this work will help us prepare young people for the fast-changing world of work.”

For the fourth year in a row waiting times have risen for Employment Tribunal claims in the UK.

Research by employment law firm GQ Littler has shown that the average waiting time - from the Tribunal receiving a claim and hearing it - is now eight months. This is up by 14% from last year, when the waiting time was 207 days.

Since 2017, when the fees required to launch a claim were abolished, claims have been on the rise with 27% extra - a total of 35,430 claims - received in 2018/19.  This came about at a time when tribunal services were already struggling due to government funding cuts, resulting in HM Courts & Tribunals service finding it difficult to employ enough front-line judicial staff, such as salaried judges and key administrative support staff to deal with their caseload.

Both employers and workers are disrupted by the wait and face months of uncertainty - with senior management often being distracted from more strategic management issues.

Raoul Parekh - Partner at GQ Littler - said:

“Many businesses facing an employment claim feel like they are operating under a cloud until that claim is dealt with. That’s why it’s important to get these claims dealt with quickly. But at current trend Employment Tribunals will soon reach breaking point. Eight month delays are just not sustainable and can be very challenging for both parties involved. On this kind of timeline, it is not uncommon for key witnesses to leave, move to other roles or countries, and memories can also fade. A severe lack of resources means delays are endemic across the whole tribunals system – even when calling the employment tribunal’s enquiries helpline, you can be waiting for hours. If no material increase in funding arises then authorities may need to look at more creative solutions. Options put forward include introducing a new step in the tribunal’s process which gives both parties a chance to settle before a case is heard in court.”

Earlier this year, the Judicial Appointments Commission did launch a recruitment drive to hire an extra 54 salaried Employment Tribunal judges. As a result of this - by July 2019 - 27 new staff had been appointed and more are planned. 

A recent report by the ‘all-party parliamentary group for whistleblowing’ showed that some whistleblowers were waiting between 18 and 36 months for their claim to be resolved, noting that the excessive duration of tribunal trials could discourage other whistleblowers from making a complaint.   Instead of confronting their employer, these employees were often just resigning or retiring.

Making comment on the GQ Littler report, shadow Justice Secretary - Richard Burgon – said:

“This is an unacceptable delay. Workers who have been unlawfully treated by bad bosses should not be forced to wait even longer for justice.”

In the tightest job market since 1969, employers are attempting to draw in workers - at times after only one phone interview - without having a face to face interview. Finding and hiring top talent is no longer limited by proximity or the coordination of increasingly busy schedules.

The practice has become most common in seasonal work, although it is spreading among in-demand white-collar roles, such as engineers and IT professionals.

The world of freelancing - known as the gig economy - is one area in which hiring workers unseen is not uncommon.

Remote.co surveyed more than one hundred companies with remote workers and as a result, Brie Reynolds - Senior Career Specialist at Remote.co and FlexJobs - stated:

“…….the vast majority use phone interviews—more so than video interviews—for hiring."  

Ira S. Wolfe - President of recruiting firm Success Performance Solutions in Wind Gap, Pa. - and an author who has emerged as one of HR's most visionary thinkers, said:

"The success of hiring sight unseen depends on the role. For a recent web project, I never spoke with the developer. All communication was via messaging."

He went on to suggest that - when hiring for traditional roles and full-time staff workers - consideration of whether the interviews should be conducted face-to-face; via video or teleconferencing, or without any visual interaction at all can be made based on very practical considerations - adding:

"If physical on-site interaction with employees or customers is required on the job, then a face-to-face interview is recommended. But if the job will be conducted virtually, then a video or phone interview offers an excellent assessment of how the candidate will conduct work.”

In Reddit - an American social news and discussion website - on a forum dedicated to Boeing Co, multiple users described being offered jobs for entry-level positions after phone interviews only.

Former Boeing recruiters said the company hired sight unseen, particularly for tough-to-fill technical positions and engineering roles and a Boeing spokeswoman stated that the company aims to hire a diverse workforce from the most qualified pool.

She said:

“With almost 1 million applicants a year, we strive to create a contemporary candidate experience that uses the most current practices in candidate assessment.”

However, Brie Reynolds commented that even when those being hired will have only slight interaction with others, there can be some potential drawbacks to remote interviews.

"One downside is the ease with which an interviewer can be distracted by an e-mail or chat message, or any number of things happening around them. Some people also miss the body language aspect of interviewing."

Denise Leaser -SHRM-SCP, President of GreatBizTools - an HR management company in Los Angeles, points to research carried out by job site Monster in which it was shown that:

"70 percent of candidates will turn down a job if they are turned off by their first impression of the company."  

She added:

"Remote hiring puts even more pressure on companies to be engaged and provide a great experience throughout the candidate and on-boarding processes."

Yet an elementary English language development teacher in Tulsa, Okla., had one phone interview with a school principal and received a conditional job offer days later. Getting hired sight unseen did not faze her because she had maintained plenty of relationships by phone and said:

“That’s what the 21st century is.”

The first bipartisan paid leave bill has been introduced in Congress by Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) - marking a major achievement in the history of paid leave legislation in the United States.

On July 24th, the paid-leave plan - that uses the child tax credit (CTC) to provide new parents with immediate funds to finance time off from work or to offset the cost of infant care - was released for discussion.  

The new proposal by Senators Cassidy and Sinema suggests another original means by which families can be guaranteed some financial security whilst taking time off after the birth or adoption of a new child under the age of 6 years. The idea is to allow people to use $5000 of their Child Tax Credit benefits - repaying into the system in future.

The CTC exists to help families with children. It has a minimum earned income requirement and is partly refundable. This allows families to claim cash benefits beyond their tax obligations - but does limit its benefits for the poorest households who do not have a tax liability.

Families on low income who would not meet the criteria for the full, refundable CTC would be able to bring forward their CTC benefit, receiving the equivalent of 12 weeks' wage replacement and their adjusted CTC benefit over the next 15 years.

In a statement, Senator Cassidy said:

"In many cases, the first year of life is the most expensive for a family. This legislation addresses this, focuses resources and eases financial strain to provide a longer bonding period for the family."

This proposal is thought to appeal to Republicans - it does not impose a new tax, nor requires people to seek money from Social Security - it simply allows people to take an interest-free loan from the government at their time of maximum need. Also, it offers flexibility - new parents can decide not to take the time off or alternatively, take advantage of an employer paid leave policy and still receive the regular CTC.

However, Politico - an American political journalism company based in Arlington County, Virginia - reports:

"The use of tax credits could win over reluctant Republicans worried about creating an expensive new program, but the lack of leave for family and medical emergencies will likely keep Democratic leaders from supporting the proposal”

Senator Cassidy stated:

"This is a common-ground solution that can pass Congress and become law,"

Senator Sinema said that the proposal was an important first step that offers parents a new option to finance time off from work or to help pay for child care.

She added:

"Too many parents are forced to choose between losing time with a new child or taking on debt to make up for lost wages."

Aparna Mathur - a resident scholar for economic policy at the American Enterprise Institute (a conservative-leaning think tank in Washington, D.C.) - wrote in an online post:

"The CTC exists precisely to help families with children. It has a minimal earned income requirement and is partly refundable, which allows families to claim cash benefits beyond their tax obligations.

Given the political divide on what constitutes a perfect policy when it comes to constructing a federal paid-leave policy, it makes sense to start with small wins and some compromises."

At a Reading Employment Tribunal, an HR Administrator - Mrs H Bagri - was found to have been unfairly dismissed by Oracle Corporation UK Limited.

Judge Andrew Gumbiti-Zimuto found that after her employment was transferred from NetSuite - a cloud computing company - there was failure to consult with her during a company-wide restructuring exercise. 

A further complaint of breach of contract was dismissed.

Mrs Bagri commenced employment with NetSuite in November 2010 as an HR Administrator. She has a 1st class degree in Business and Human Resource Management and a Level 7 CIPD diploma.

On 1st January 2017, Mrs Bagri was transferred from NetSuite to Oracle, having previously been told by her line manager at Netsuite - in November 2016 - that she was under threat of redundancy and that her employment could end in May 2017.  However, this information was not correct and in December 2016 Mrs Bagri was informed by the Vice President Human Resources at Oracle that - at that time - no decision on headcount had been made regarding NetSuite or Mrs Bagri.

In February 2017, the Vice President HR undertook a review of the needs of the HR team. She concluded that a business reorganisation was required and that Mrs Bagri’s role would no longer exist. The reason for this was that her task - that of arranging the changeover of NetSuite employees to Oracle - could be automated.

On 1st March 2017, Mrs Bagri was notified by letter that her role was at risk. She stated that after receiving the letter she had no further contact with the HR team about her role, nor did she have any consultation meetings. She was dismissed on 31st May 2017.

Mrs Bagri appealed against the decision to dismiss her. She stated that she was made redundant because of the transfer from NetSuite to Oracle. She was informed that the appeal process was to be conducted on paper and by way of written correspondence, and was not invited to an appeal meeting dealt with by the Vice President EMEA HR for Oracle - who said that she “did not feel that the points raised within the appeal required any further direct questions to Mrs Bagri” and dismissed the appeal.

When Mrs Bagri brought claims of unfair dismissal and breach of contract to the Reading Tribunal on 29th August 2017, she argued that the transfer was the reason for her dismissal. She said that she had been told there would be individual consultations but that Oracle had not invited her to any meetings and there was no evidence of any formal meetings - which Oracle said had occurred - taking place. Mrs Bagri stated that she was of the opinion that Oracle had no intention of retaining her after the transfer and did not try to incorporate her into the HR team or the company.

Oracle argued that Mrs Bagri did not seem interested in remaining in the business and that despite her role as a qualified and experienced HR professional she did not complain about the redundancy process.

The Tribunal, however, ruled that Mrs Bagri had been unfairly dismissed, stating that there was a “50 per cent chance that she would have continued in employment if she was not unfairly dismissed”. The Judge ruled that no proper consultation with Mrs Bagri had taken place about ways to avoid redundancy.

Angela Brumpton - Partner at Gunnercooke - remarked:

“Some employers see appeals as a box-ticking exercise, or a necessary evil, when actually a thorough appeals process can cure procedural defects. Savvy employers embrace appeals as an opportunity to review the initial process and plug any gaps.”

She added that businesses should also use appeals as an opportunity to “fix any deficiencies in the initial dismissal”. 

Bosses and managers have been called to review their leadership style and learn new skills, or face losing talent in their organisations.

A survey was carried out in June and July 2019, by Jobrapido - a Symphony Technology Group company - and conducted on 1444 employees across more than twenty different industry sectors including sales, marketing, engineering, transportation, construction and technology. 

The research shows that 36 per cent of workers in the UK are planning to leave their jobs in the near future - because their boss does not inspire them. In addition, they reported that there is no clear career structure created and that their boss does not listen to them.

Two thirds of respondents stated that they planned to leave their employment within the next twelve months due to their boss’s poor leadership style.  

When the respondents to the research were asked what would persuade them to remain in their jobs, 47 per cent stated that their boss should inspire them - making them want to stay with the company. An additional 39 per cent believed the most important quality for a manager was the ability to listen and 10 per cent thought that bosses should provide a clear career structure for all their staff - not just a select few.

These latest statistics are further bad news for business owners who already face challenges in attracting and retaining their talent. Eurostat - the statistical office of the European Union - report a 2.7 vacancy rate in the UK, which is the highest level compared to the last decade.

Rob Brouwer - CEO of Jobrapido - stated:

“In the UK, the demand is becoming vigorously strong and far outstripping the supply for talent. There is clearly a need for bosses, line manages and HR departments to pay even more attention to the need not only to attract the best talents on the market but, once on board, to look at all the way to engage and retain them.

The issue can arise because staff and senior management, whilst technically brilliant at the job and or excellent at running a business, have never received training of how to lead, manage and nurture the careers of other members of their team.

If Britain’s bosses are keen to retain their staff, then they should look at way to inspire them and perhaps, getting direct and constructive feedback via 360 degree reviews from all their staff. Also, wherever possible, look at how they can address any concerns and give adequate responses.

At the same time, no boss or line manager should think they are above learning new skills if it can help to bolster the company spirit and retaining talent. Embarking on the right leadership training or a series of courses will be an important step to inspire staff so they feel inclined to stay for many more years within the company, considering how crucial the talent is for a company business and its success on the short and the long term.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Salas added:

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

In response, American Airlines issued a statement that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jenny Arrowsmith - Employment Partner at Irwin Mitchell - stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She added:

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

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

She said:

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

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

Sir Philip Hampton - Chair of the review - warned:

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

He added:

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

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

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

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

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

Maria Johannessen - a Partner at Mercer - stated:

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

Charles Cowling - an Actuary at Mercer - commented:

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Dates of employment with the employer

• Wages or salary history during the employment

• Job description and job title during the employment

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

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

Theresa Connolly and Lauren Goetzl suggested:

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

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

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

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

Kristina Vaquera and Milena Radovic stated:

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

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

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

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

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

Nick Woodward - CEO of ETZ Payments - stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New research from the CIPD finds that long hours, stress and poor work-life balance is damaging attempts to improve the job quality amongst UK employers.

A total of 5,136 people were surveyed for the UK Working Lives Survey, which is an assessment of job quality over categories ranging from pay and benefits, contracts and employment terms and job design to health and wellbeing.

Identifying poor work-life balance as a problem, 60 per cent of those surveyed stated that say they work longer hours than they wish to, with 24 per cent stating that they overwork by at least ten hours a week - and find it difficult to relax in their leisure time because they are thinking about work.

The report also highlights serious fears about the workloads and the effect it can have on the health of employees - with 66 per cent saying they have experienced anxiety and sleep problems in the last 12 months.

Peter Cheese - Chief Executive of the CIPD - said that the survey showed that work could sometimes be inclusive, putting too many demands on much of people’s personal time.  

He stated:

“At its best, work gives people purpose, a sense of identity and achievement, and allows them to contribute to society. But, as our research shows, work can sometimes be all-encompassing, demands too much of people’s precious personal time and takes too much out of them. It’s disappointing to see so many workers report they have a poor work-life balance and it is an issue which must be addressed by employers. They need to be offering all staff a wide range of flexible working arrangements and actively promoting their take-up.”

He added:

“As co-chair of the Flexible Working Task Force, we are working with the government and other business groups to bring flexible working to the masses and help reset the work-life balance. Not only will this help to improve people’s quality of life, but it will make their performance at work more sustainable over the long-term.”

Louise Aston - Health and Wellbeing Director at Business in the Community - approved the call by the CIPD for employers to offer improved flexible working practices, but stated that it is only one part of the solution to addressing the problem of UK job quality. 

She said:

“More and more people are using their annual leave or time at home to work and alarmingly, according to our research, only one in four organisations are taking any steps to discourage this. A seismic cultural shift is needed across the board because the trend towards people working longer and harder than ever before looks set to get worse. Long term, this causes burnout, is unsustainable and has a significant impact on recruitment and retention.”

The CIPD is also urging employers to fulfill their statutory duty of carrying out a comprehensive health and safety risk assessment and to provide effective training for line managers in people management practices.

In response to an unprecedented recruitment crisis, an emergency pay boost of up to 25% of salary has been introduced by the Ministry of Justice.

This is a recruitment and retention allowance representing a 25% increase for High Court judges and a 15% increase for Circuit and Upper Tribunal judges, but the extra money will not go to judges at the level where solicitors are most likely to be found - District and First-Tier Tribunal judges will receive only a 2% pay rise. It has been stressed that the allowance is only temporary until a solution is found to the recruitment problem.

About a quarter of the 1,850 salaried judges will be affected and around 60 will qualify for the 25% allowance.

At present, more than 10% of High Court positions are vacant with the Chancery Division being 20% below strength and – if recruitment is not more successful – by the end of the year the figure will have doubled to 40% below strength.

The Ministry of Justice have said that the new figures will ‘strike a balance between an appropriate investment of public funds and addressing serious recruitment and retention problems’. This is despite the new figures being below those recommended last year by the Senior Salaries Review Body in its government-commissioned report, which found that changes to tax and pensions mean that the total remuneration for a new High Court judge is worth £80,000 less than it was ten years ago - showing a 36% decrease.

David Gauke - Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary - said:

“Our judges are a cornerstone of our democratic society - their experience draws billions of pounds worth of business to the UK, and without them people cannot get justice. We have reached a critical point. There are too many vacancies and with the retirement of many judges looming; we must act now before we see a serious impact on our courts and tribunals.

Judges are in a unique position and once they join the bench are not permitted to return to practice. Without the best legal minds in these seats, everyone that uses our courts will suffer, as will our international reputation. This temporary allowance, pending long-term pension scheme change, will enable us to continue to attract the brightest and best and prevent delays to potentially life-changing decisions.”

Lord Burnett of Maldon - the Lord Chief Justice together with Sir Ernest Ryder - Senior President of Tribunals - welcomed the announcement.

They said:

“It is an important step which we are confident will have a significant effect on addressing critical shortages in the judiciary.

Judges understand very well how delays to the cases they decide can affect the people and businesses involved.  They do their utmost to ensure cases are dealt with both promptly and fairly, but are nonetheless concerned that there is an urgent need to recruit enough judges to tackle the workload in a sustainable way.

Judges are conscious that they are well-paid compared to most in the public sector. They are continually finding ways to make the administration of justice more efficient both through the modernisation programme being run by HM Courts & Tribunals Service and more widely. We are pleased that the government is taking action to address the serious difficulties faced in recruiting to the judiciary.”

The Court of Appeal have found in favour of paramedic Neil Flowers and 12 of his colleagues - who all work for East of England Ambulance Trust covering Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire. Mr Flowers and colleagues had argued that their holiday pay should reflect the hours they worked - including voluntary overtime - rather than being calculated on their contracted hours.

Lord Justice Bean said:

“The employment tribunal in the present case made no error of law in finding that the remuneration linked to overtime work that was performed on a voluntary basis could be included in normal remuneration for calculating holiday pay.”

Originally, the workers union - Unison - took the case to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) after they had partly won their employment tribunal cases - but lost the argument for voluntary overtime to be included.  Subsequently, EAT ruled that voluntary overtime should also be taken into account when calculating holiday pay, alongside mandatory and non-guaranteed overtime.

Unison stated that as a result of staffing shortages across the NHS, the workers regularly volunteered to work overtime to ease the pressure on their colleagues - and to increase their pay. The union cited the government’s failure to recruit sufficient workers as the reason that working overtime had become the custom for most members of staff.

Dave Prentis - Unison General Secretary - said:

"Before this judgment NHS workers who did regular overtime or often worked well beyond their shifts saw a drop in their pay whenever they took a well-deserved break. Leave calculations that weren't based on the extra shifts and hours they did week in and week out meant many were considerably out of pocket. Unison always believed that the rules around NHS pay already allowed for overtime and working beyond the end of a shift to be taken into account when calculating holiday pay. This judgment confirms that but does highlight another pressing problem. The NHS urgently needs to recruit more staff so existing nurses, paramedics and other health workers don't have to regularly work overtime simply to keep the service afloat. This is a victory for all those health service workers who regularly go the extra mile to make sure we receive the best care possible at all times of the day and night."

Employment lawyers have said that this judgment could have much wider implications for organisations - mainly, but not only - in the public sector, where the employees regularly carry out paid overtime. 

Helen Beech - Partner at Clarkslegal - said:

“Where the overtime, voluntary or otherwise, is sufficiently regular and settled, it implies that the employee relies on those payments as part of their regular remuneration, and the loss of such payments would result in a disincentive to take their annual leave which would mean the employer is in breach of the Working Time Regulations.”

She added:

“HR should also be mindful that under the Working Time Regulations, they should not be disincentivising employees from taking their holiday as this could lead to a claim.”

However, Beverley Sunderland - Managing Director of Crossland Employment Solicitors - stated that the ruling “flew in the face of previous cases and the direction of travel for holiday pay”.

She added:

“No doubt there will be numerous cases on exactly what is meant by this.”

More than 100 other cases awaiting hearings as a the result of this judgment may now face a longer wait as the East of England Ambulance Trust said it would be appealing to the Supreme Court and added:

"As a trust we are committed to offering our staff good rates of pay, a generous holiday entitlement and great working conditions."

A federal judge in northern Texas has granted American Airlines (AA), a temporary restraining order against two unions - the Transport Workers Union of America and the International Association of Machinists (TWU-IAM) - to block an alleged work slowdown by their members.

The TWU-IAM Association - which represents more than 30,000 employees in 12 work groups including mechanics, baggage handlers and airport ramp workers - have been told by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, to issue a notice to their workers to no longer continue activities such as slowing aircraft repairs (or indeed slowing any part of their job performance), refusing to work overtime or on assignments away from their normal location, or any other actions that would negatively impact AA’s operations.

In documents filed with the Court, AA maintained that the union’s “illegal conduct has dramatically escalated and has become devastating to the airline’s operations, customers and employees.” The airline claimed that before the union began their alleged campaign, staffing overtime or field trips had not been an issue, yet since February of this year there had been periods with no overtime shifts worked and no field trips undertaken. As a result, since filing the original lawsuit in May, the airline have had to cancel 722 flights over 23 days, disrupting travel plans of around 175,000 passengers.

AA therefore argued for the temporary restraining order, deciding that the trial due to commence July 1st was too long to wait. Court documents stated “illegal conduct has dramatically escalated” and that it is “creating an operational crisis causing significant damage to American, the traveling public and American’s employees.”

The slowdown, according to AA, was instigated by the union as a method of strengthening their position in new contract talks that began in late 2015. TWU-IAM is the only major union that has not been able to agree contracts with the airline - regarding issues such as compensation and health and retirement benefits - since their merger with US Airways in 2013. The union have however denied encouraging any slowdown, claiming that it is a result of low worker morale, partly caused by a plan to outsource thousands of US jet mechanic jobs to South America.

Patricia Murphy, who worked for Northumberland County Council from 1999 until her dismissal on the grounds of ill-health in 2017, won her North Shields employment tribunal hearing alleging discrimination and harassment.

A poor employee/manager relationship resulted in the claimant being asked how long “this disabled thing” was going to continue.

Miss Murphy, who has a physical impairment to her feet following an injury, worked for Northumberland County Council as a social worker until her dismissal. She started work for the council in 1999, becoming a social worker in 2001. In 2008 she became a team manager, responsible for 9/10 social workers. She had an excellent attendance record.

In 2014, Miss Murphy injured her foot.

In 2015, the council received complaints and Miss Murphy was suspended and given a written warning. She was demoted from team leader to an independent reviewing officer, a role that required Miss Murphy to be fully mobile and involved travelling across the county to see children. 

After the suspension, Miss Murphy had an x-ray taken which showed nerve damage. She was advised that surgery was needed to correct the condition and went off work in February 2016.

Miss Murphy met Karen MacDonald - her line manager - and Amanda Atkinson - the HR Adviser for the council - in October 2016.   She was informed that she could not return as a team manager and she replied that she could not return to a full independent reviewing officer role - but could do some work. The tribunal had the impression that relations were strained between Miss Murphy and her two interviewers.

It was agreed that Miss Murphy would to return to work on 7th November and a foot rest was provided for her. However, she was then away from work from 23rd December 2016 not returning until late in August 2017. During this period an occupational health report found that she was still unfit for work and despite two attempts by her line manager and HR Adviser, they were unsuccessful in arranging a meeting.

On 14th August, a meeting took place between the line manager, the HR Adviser and Miss Murphy - where Miss Murphy requested that she be able to use her annual leave to extend her return to work. The request was refused and she was told that she would be expected back to work in the role of independent reviewing officer taking on a full caseload, four weeks after her return – failing which she would be dismissed. During the meeting, the line manager stated that Miss Murphy’s behaviour was like that of an angry, stroppy teenager’ and that she felt like she wanted to ‘poke Miss Murphy’s eyes out’ because of her behaviour during her first return to work in November 2016.

On 21st August, Miss Murphy was given audit work to carry out. At the beginning of September, another occupational health report stated that, at that time Miss Murphy did not have the capacity to return to the independent reviewing officer role - and that this could be so for the following six months, with no certainty that she would be able to cope with all aspects of the role after that and suggested that the phased return should be extended by annual leave.

In September another meeting was held with the line manager and the HR Adviser at which Miss Murphy asked if there were any roles she could move to while her feet improved. The line manager replied by asking how long ‘this disabled thing’ was going on. Miss Murphy was then told she would be dismissed and - at a final meeting at the end of September she was dismissed on the grounds of ill-health capability in ongoing health. 

The tribunal found the council had failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments; discriminated against Murphy because of her disability and unfairly dismissed her. It dismissed the victimisation claim.

The Judge said that the line manager’s remark about feeling like poking Miss Murphy’s eyes out by reason of her behaviour ‘should never fall from the lips of a senior manager’ - but were not an act of harassment or discrimination. 

He added:

“The effect was to violate her dignity or at least to create an intimidating and hostile environment for the claimant. Instead they are indicative of the poor relationship which by then had developed between the claimant and her line manager.” 

Andrew Willis - Head of Legal at HR-inform - said the case is a reminder of the need for professional and appropriate communication between managers and employees - regardless of how frustrating the situation is.

“With disability discrimination tribunal claims notably on the rise, make sure managers have training on being emphatic, holding sensitive conversations and dealing with difficult members of staff. This can be the difference between an unlimited compensation award and managing the situation in line with best practice and the needs of your business.”

After an 11-month investigation by freelancer website ContractorCalculator, HM Revenue & Customs have released figures suggesting that thousands of contractors could have grounds to appeal against wrongful tax treatment. This is a result of unlawful blanket assessments conducted by public sector hirers.

A series of Freedom of Information requests from ContractorCalculator - which sought statistics detailing the results issued by the Check Employment Status for Tax (CEST) tool - were consistently blocked by HMRC, but an appeal which resulted in an intervention from the Information Commissioner’s Office finally provided the data requested.

HMRC have been accused of acting in a manner ‘akin to climate change denial’ in its defence of its Check Employment Status for Tax (CEST) tool.

Dave Chaplin - Director of the Stop the Off-Payroll Tax campaign and Chief Executive of ContractorCalculator - wrote an open letter citing ‘widespread and indisputable’ evidence of the shortcomings of CEST which he said HMRC ‘brazenly refused to acknowledge, let alone attempted to address’.

He stated:

“Our investigative work has unearthed a wealth of evidence exposing CEST’s inaccuracies and the unfair outcomes of the assessments, namely widespread false employment. To date, the taxman has repeatedly claimed CEST is accurate, despite widespread criticism of the tool and evidence suggesting otherwise. HMRC’s tin-eared stance on the matter is unacceptable and we are hoping that this open letter will prompt some answers.”

When carried out across a number of public sector organisations, the data requested disclosed CEST assessments showing nearly unanimous inside IR35 results. Nearly 4,000 CEST assessments were inspected and 94 per cent were found to fall within IR35, meaning that for tax purposes contractors are treated as employees.

Private sector companies will be responsible for determining the IR35 status of their contractors from April 2020.

Dave Chaplin has argued that the recent tax tribunal victories for Lorraine Kelly and Kaye Adams have shown up the shortcomings of CEST and that until CEST is changed, a private sector roll-out of the off-payroll rules should not even be considered an option.

He wrote:

‘How is the public expected to trust the output of a tool which has been shown to return the wrong outcome in the most straightforward of employment status cases? - or a tool developed by a government body which has only outright won one of its last 12 IR35 tribunal cases?’

He added:

“HMRC has had two years to provide us with evidence to support its claims that CEST has been rigorously tested and is accurate. Until CEST is fixed and the high risk of contractors being subjected to false ‘inside IR35’ assessments is negated, a private sector roll-out of the off-payroll rules shouldn’t even be considered as an option.”

HMRC said in a statement:

“CEST was rigorously tested against known case law and settled cases. It is accurate, and HMRC stands by the result if the tool is used correctly. CEST is not biased towards an employment outcome and in the last 12 months over 50% of determinations it has provided have been for self-employment or outside the off-payroll rules – this is in line with our expectations for the service. HMRC estimates only about a third of individuals working through their own company fall within the rules and should be taxed as employees. However, numbers will vary greatly between roles and sectors.”

In the public sector, at present there is no known HMRC appeals process for persons wishing to contest their IR35 status decision. However, litigation or claiming unlawful deductions from wages through employment tribunals are possible routes to follow.

Martyn Valentine - Director of The Law Place - said:

“A large portion of contractors have been wrongly assessed as caught by IR35, forced into false employment, and consequently wrongly and overtaxed. They can litigate against the client and/or agency for unlawful deductions of tax. Even some contractors who are genuinely caught inside IR35 could successfully bring action. We know of numerous instances where public sector bodies have deducted their own tax burdens, including employer’s National Insurance (NI), from the rates agreed with contractors. Provided expert legal advice is obtained, the affected contractors can reclaim what is rightfully theirs.”

A survey - conducted by ADP Research Institute - shows that the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force a year ago, has had a positive impact on employee confidence around data security.

In May 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation was implemented to boost individual data protection and to guarantee the privacy of those living within the European Union and Economic Area.

The survey found that 53% of the respondents said that their confidence has risen in the way their employer stores and secures their personal and private data - an increase of 6% on results from 2018.

The ADP Workforce View in Europe 2019 surveyed over 10,000 workers in Europe - with countries including France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the UK being researched. It reported that employees generally have been feeling more assured about their companies’ data protection efforts since the GDPR came into being.

However, 34% of employees in France still had some concerns about the safety of their personal data and over a quarter of the UK employee respondents are still worried about the security of their personal data - with the biggest worry for 11% of the employees being the lack of control that workers have over their data storage.

The next issue - reported by 9% of employees - is lack of confidence that the data is being held by systems in their organisations which are capable of withstanding cyber-attacks or data breaches. A further eight per cent stated that they are concerned that too much data is being held without proper consent.

Cécile Georges - ADP Chief Privacy Officer - stated:

“It’s highly encouraging to see that the implementation of GDPR has coincided with a significant rise in employee confidence, suggesting that employees feel more assured than they were prior to GDPR that companies will actually comply with Data Protection requirements that for the most part were already in force in the European Union.

It is crucial for both the organisations and their employees that the former are complying with GDPR and have a thorough understanding of the impact of wrongfully processing data on employees.

GDPR has already led to positive results but companies must continue to work to maintain data security and ensure their employees feel confident about the way their employers hold and process their personal data.”

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has - in the case of Spanish Trade Union (CCOO) v Deutsche Bank SAE - handed down an important judgment about working time.

The CCOO wanted a system in place for recording how long its members worked each day - including the number of hours worked overtime - to enable the verification that these complied with their stipulated working conditions.

The group action against Deutsche Bank stated that, as a necessary measure, every worker is entitled to a minimum daily rest period of 11 consecutive hours per 24-hour period; that they should be guaranteed a minimum uninterrupted period of 24 hours plus the 11 hours’ daily rest and that there should be safeguarding against workers’ average working time for each 7-day period, including overtime.

Under Spanish law, employers are only required to keep a record of overtime hours worked by each worker at the end of each month. Evidence was given to the court that these records were not accurate - and that 53.7% of all overtime worked was not recorded.

The European Court of Justice ruled that employers must take steps to make sure their staff are not exceeding the 48-hour maximum working week and are taking adequate rest breaks.

The CCOO said that the ECJ judgment made it clear that the previous Spanish legal framework did not comply with European legislation.

Sybille Steiner - Employment Partner at Irwin Mitchell - said:

“This decision is binding in the UK and will affect those employers who do not accurately record the numbers of hours their staff work – whether these are paid or unpaid.

This decision arguably goes further than our laws require and employers should make sure that the systems they use to measure working time are ‘objective’ and ‘reliable’ and reflect all hours their staff work – not just those set out in their contracts of employment.”

In the UK, under the Working Time Regulations 1998, employers have to keep records to show that workers are not working in excess of 48 hours a week and the rules around night work are complied with. They do not, however, explicitly require employers to record data to show that daily and weekly rest periods are met.

Records have to be kept for at least two years and these rules are enforced by the Health and Safety Executive. Employers that breach them can be prosecuted and fined.

According to a poll of 2,002 Americans conducted by John Zogby Strategies - an American public opinion pollster - 51 per cent of Millennials and Generation Z reported that ‘fair representation of race, ethnicity and religion is paramount to creating the ideal workplace' .

Agreeing with that statement were 48 per cent of Generation X and 42 per cent of Baby Boomers - who also wanted employers to prioritize diversity over ability when it comes to hiring.

Only 15 per cent of Generation Z and 32 per cent of Millennials believe that 'merit and competition supersede all, even if that results in a workplace that creates minimal diversity' - compared to 37 percent of Generation X and 45 percent of Baby Boomers who said that merit is more important than diversity.

When questioned as to whether businesses should prioritize their impact on the environment - or focus on growing jobs and satisfying stockholders - 55 per cent of Generation Z; 42 per cent of Millennials; 41 per cent of Generation X and 40 per cent of Baby Boomers agreed with the statement 'major business decisions must first and foremost take into account their impact on the environment.'.

Jeremy Zogby - a Partner in Zogby Strategies - commented:

“There are really two opposing schools, I guess you could say that there's one that's on the side of progressive ideology, whereas the other one is more in line with the way business was always run. There is definitely a progressive slant in Millennials and Gen Z.”

Alexandra Anders - EMEA Talent Director, Cornerstone OnDemand - writes:

‘Diversity over ability - that’s what matters to Millennials and Gen Z, research recently revealed. For these generations, an employee from all backgrounds being fairly represented is the key for a great workplace and diversity is more important than hiring new employees based on their skills.

Yet, businesses are still failing to address problems of equality and transparency. Not to name names but we’ve all seen the ongoing issues at Google.

While there may be no quick-fix or overnight solution, there are ways that you can and should take action now.’

She added:

‘Recruitment is just the first step towards creating greater equality. When you’re looking to build a diverse workforce you also need to retain people. The recent revelations from companies submitting their pay gap reports shows how too often a company’s first and only response will be to launch a big diversity recruitment push. After that they see this as a job done – but that’s only the start. HR needs to reflect not only on hiring practices but also internal rewards and policies and the rest of the employee lifecycle’.

A report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) stated that 14% of UK workers fell into a high risk category where jobs could be entirely replaced by technology - and they have warned that the US and UK are among countries that need to do better on digital up-skilling.

According to new research, more than one in ten workers in the UK are at such high risk of seeing their roles automated that they require up to a year’s training to secure a safer occupation. An additional 2.6% required more than three years of training to find an entirely new role.

The OECD warns that there is a widespread global crisis when it comes to getting the skills in place to thrive in a digital economy.

Despite the fact that governments and organisations have pledged to tackle the problem, only a few countries have managed to - with Belgium, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden being the nations best placed for the future.

The OECD report - Thriving in a Digital World - states:

‘Digitalisation presents immense potential to boost productivity and improve well-being. It can give people more power over what they learn, where and when they work, and how they engage in society. However, it can also increase inequalities if some people or regions are left behind. By improving the skills of their populations, countries can ensure the new technologies translate into better outcomes for all. This requires a comprehensive and co-ordinated policy intervention, with skills-related policies as the cornerstone of this package.’

However, just focusing on digital and technical skills is not an appropriate plan of action, as workers in the future need training in cognitive and socio-emotional skills - providing the human x-factor not offered by their robot colleagues.

At the Paris launch of the report, Angel Gurría - OECD Secretary General - said:

“A well-rounded skillset is critical to unlocking the benefits of digitalisation. However, the OECD Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) reveals that 15% of adults lack basic digital skills, and 13% lack basic digital, numeracy and problem-solving skills. This is really scary, as citizens without basic skills are at risk of being left behind by the digital transformation. Moreover, on average in the OECD, 6.6% of young graduates have low literacy and numeracy skills. But this share goes up to almost 20% in some countries. This means that holding a tertiary degree does not always guarantee a high level of skills. New technologies are changing the way we carry out our jobs. In the digital age, workers must be mobile and able to retrain and upskill along the course of their lives. Our estimates suggest that 14% of jobs (on average) across the OECD face a high risk of being automated and many more jobs – 32% – are expected to undergo substantial changes in terms of the quantity and quality of their tasks. It is imperative that workers retrain and upskill to face these enormous challenges. However, workers in occupations at high risk of automation and the low-skilled are less likely to participate in on the job training than other workers.”

He added:

“In our rapidly digitalising world, skills make the difference between staying ahead of the wave and falling behind. Businesses have a key role to play in ensuring that employees upskill and reskill, adapting to the changing demands of the labour market. By improving our skills systems, we can ensure that today’s technological revolution will improve lives for all.” 

Amber Rudd - Work and Pensions Secretary - recently called for a new government focus on helping people better themselves in work, enabling them to move to higher paid, higher-skilled roles.

At the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, she said;

“Automation is driving the decline of banal and repetitive tasks. So the jobs of the future are increasingly likely to be those that need human sensibilities, with personal relationships, qualitative judgement and creativity coming to the fore. And there is a clear role for government to help people take advantage of these changes, and to help businesses create high-quality jobs.”

Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) – one of the largest energy providers – has been ordered to pay £230,000 to an employee for unfair dismissal.

In the case of Donald Nutt v SSE Ltd at Dundee Employment Tribunal, the Court criticised the extreme poor practice and genuine unfairness shown towards Mr Nutt by SSE Ltd. The judge stated that the HR process was "reminiscent of a show trial in the former Soviet Union".

Mr Nutt - who had been employed by SSE Ltd for 16 years before his dismissal in October 2014 - raised safety issues in 2012 regarding free health checks for night shift workers and also that the company's night shift structure was causing health problems. He brought a formal grievance, which was not upheld.

In March 2013, Mr Nutt received a poor appraisal report and was informed that he would be getting an informal warning. This was despite having previously received consistently excellent appraisals.

The company accused him of refusing to accept the findings, telling him:

“....you are free to raise any reasonable concerns you have with your manager, but once the outcome has been decided you should accept that outcome and move on in a positive and constructive manner. The topic should not be questioned again unless there is a change in the situation.”

In July 2013, Mr Nutt was signed off from work for two months, due to stress. On his return, he had a meeting with HR - who decided to bring disciplinary action against him for failing to accept that he was wrong over the night shift complaint - and not accepting that his grievance had been properly investigated.  He was dismissed.

The judge at the tribunal stated that the HR professional:

“.....was demanding that Mr Nutt not only accept throughout that he had been wrong, but also accept a number of factual circumstances that weren't true – principally, that his grievance had been properly investigated. It quite clearly had not. At many instances during the meeting, it appears that SSE not only wished Mr Nutt to acknowledge that he was wrong, but express gratitude to SSE for treating him as they had. This is somewhat reminiscent of a show trial in the former Soviet Union rather than modern employment relations practice."

The tribunal found that practically no investigation had been conducted into Mr Nutt’s alleged misconduct and that his crime was to have argued with the company. Judge McFatridge ordered SSE Ltd to rehire Mr Nutt and awarded him £140,000 compensation.

However, when SSE refused to re-instate Mr Nutt, the award was increased to £230,000. Mr Nutt's other claim of unfair treatment - on the basis of whistle blowing - was not upheld.    

A new report has shown that more employers are becoming aware of the vital role they play in ensuring that good quality work is not only good for their employee’s welfare, but is also the key to productivity.

A growing proportion of employers are providing counselling services as most organisations are increasing their focus on mental health - with 40 per cent having a standalone well-being strategy. Comparing figures with last year, 61 per cent of respondents agreed that employee well-being is now on the senior leaders’ agendas against 55% last year. However, 16.5 per cent are still not doing anything to improve their employees’ well-being.

Unmanageable workloads - say 62 per cent of HR professionals - and management style quoted by 43 per cent, are two top causes of stress in the workplace.

Poor financial well-being is cited as being a significant cause of employee stress by 25 per cent of respondents. Nearly 50 per cent state that they regularly communicate reward policies to staff so they understand the benefits on offer and the choices available - but fewer of them consult the employees to assess how well their benefit offering is meeting their financial needs.

In nearly two-thirds of businesses, line managers are expected to take prime responsibility for managing short-term absence, despite the fact that only 50 per cent of organisations train managers to manage stress. Only 37 per cent of businesses provide any training or guidance for line managers to spot the warning signs of presenteeism – but 79 per cent rely on their managers to send people home when they are unwell. The average level of absence is 5.9 days per employee per year - or 2.6 per cent of working time lost - and is the lowest ever recorded by the survey.

Mental ill health - along with stress, skeletal injuries and acute medical conditions - is increasingly prevalent as a cause of both short and long-term absence.

The survey finds that when line managers are advised of the importance of health and well-being, businesses are more likely to report that stress is well managed. Training line managers and providing them with tailored support are among the most effective methods. HR should, therefore, look for simple, low-cost ways to start building healthier workplaces.

Rachel Suff - Senior Policy Adviser at CIPD - who led the research, says:

“Not only are most managers ill equipped to support their teams through times of stress, but if they don’t go about their role in the right way, the impact on people’s well-being can be harmful. Employers can introduce a suite of exemplary well-being policies and make a serious investment in employee health, but if their activity is not rooted in how people are managed, it will not have real impact.”

She added:

“Our research shows that manager buy-in is crucial, so HR teams should focus communications with managers on what’s in it for them: when their team’s happy, healthy and engaged in their work, they’re more likely to meet their goals and contribute to the team’s success.”

Personal Group, a technology-enabled employee services business, has surveyed more than 1550 UK employees about their happiness, enthusiasm, pride and efficiency at work. The research is the second annual national survey of this kind from Personal Group.

The results showed that despite a gender pay gap of 17.9% across all employees, women are happier; more enthusiastic and prouder about the work they do than their male colleagues. Almost 45% of women said that they are happy at work either quite often or most of the time. This compared with only 34.5% of men.

Similarly, where enthusiasm was concerned, 42.8% of women felt enthusiastic about their work quite often or most of the time - versus 36.1% of men. Of the employees who rarely feel happy, enthusiastic and proud at work - men score 6.4% higher than women, across all categories. 

However, men are keener than women to get to work in the morning and one reason for this may be that men feel more satisfied that they are recognised for their contribution at work. When questioned, 39.8% of men - against 47.2% of women - valued recognition as a preferred benefit. Overall, money was voted the most important benefit by both 60.9% of men and 63.3% of women. Men are more in favour of longer-term benefits, such as life and health insurance and 33.8% said these would make them happier at work, compared to just 27% of women.

With regard to going to work each morning, men at a senior level are more reticent. Of the male company owners and directors surveyed, 44.4% are rarely keen to go to work, against 6.3% of their female counterparts. However, for frontline workers, the percentage of men and women reluctant to go to work is practically the same - 51.2% of women and 50.4% of men.

Deborah Frost - Chief Executive at Personal Group - said:

“I’m encouraged that Gender pay reporting continues to drive the conversation around pay discrepancies and we’re seeing progress at several large organisations including Greggs, H & M and Mitchell and Butlers. However, many organisations have seen their gap stall – or even increase and, although this may be due to positive initiatives such as increasing the intake of women at entry level, these short-term fluctuations in results are only forgivable so long as organisations are also implementing evidence-based initiatives to support a targeted plan and drive meaningful improvements.

Regardless, it’s clear that UK businesses still have a long way to go. Our research echoes this frustrating state of affairs – it’s no surprise that more money and more recognition are the most in-demand benefits amongst women when asked how employers could increase their workplace happiness.

Despite women being paid less, they are actually happier and more enthusiastic at work compared to men, with just 34.5 per cent of male employees saying they often feel happy at work. This is just as concerning and is something that British businesses must explore further and work to improve.

Closing the gender pay gap and the gender happiness gap requires businesses to ask themselves some difficult questions - and a willingness to act if they discover less than satisfactory responses. Making progress will undoubtedly require changes to culture and strategy, but if businesses can make sure they’re communicating openly with their employees around both pay and happiness, everyone will benefit.”

More than 2,370 employees across the UK were questioned - as part of a new study by the Centre for People, Work and Organisational Practice at Nottingham Business School, in partnership with the CIPD and YouGov - about issues they experience in the workplace and whether they feel able to raise them.

The respondents were asked which issues they experience, with the data showing that the most common issue experienced by 4 per cent of employees, is work pressure. Organisational change was cited by 29 per cent and 22 per cent who had raised an issue at work felt that they received no advice or support.

The study found that - for 62 per cent of the respondents - the most common method for them to have a voice is by one-to-one meetings with a line manager. Team meetings accounted for 49 per cent of employees expressing their concerns and only 17 per cent approached a trade union.

Professor Helen Shipton - lead researcher; Director of the Centre for People, Work and Organisational Practice and author of the report -‘Talking about employee voice: employees’ experiences’ - said:

“Nearly three in ten employees report low psychological safety at work. Employers therefore need to create safe environments for people to speak out, which can positively impact well-being and organisational effectiveness. Line managers are shown to have a critical role in this by enabling employees to voice their issues and ideas in one-to-one meetings. This shows a need for all line managers to be trained to understand the value of employee voice, encourage individuals to voice issues that are important to them, and to suggest improvements to the way things are done in the organisation, or share innovative ideas.”

Just half of the respondents were found to be satisfied - or very satisfied - with the amount of involvement they have in making decisions at work. Employees working in small and private organisations were more satisfied compared with those working in large and public sector organisations, but only a quarter stated that they feel free to express themselves - with another quarter stating that they chose to remain silent even though they had something they wanted to say.

Terms and conditions of employment - such as pay, holidays and flexible working - were cited by 38 per cent of employees as areas in which they had little or no control.

Daniel King - Professor of Organisational Studies at Nottingham Business School and co-author of the report - said:

“Our findings suggest that organisations offer limited scope for sharing matters that their employees consider to be important. However, there is a positive link between voice and job satisfaction - which means employers should create ways for all staff to have a voice, which can in turn boost their attitude and motivation at work. These findings are important in the context of creating good work and quality jobs, because they point towards factors that can empower or disempower people in shaping their working lives.”

A recent judgement by the Employment Appeal Tribunal has found that Emma Pease - whilst on maternity leave - was unfavourably treated, but not discriminated against by the South West Yorkshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust.

Mrs Pease was employed by the Trust as a health trainer and during her maternity leave the Trust carried out a redundancy exercise. A meeting took place - which Mrs Pease attended - and at that meeting she was informed that she was at risk of being made redundant the following day. Two days later, she was sent an email, attaching a deployment document and guidance notes, stressing that the document should be completed and returned to HR as soon as possible. However, because the email was sent to her work email address, she did not receive it.

Shortly afterwards, Mrs Pease found out that she had missed the email. She obtained a copy, completed the document and returned it immediately.

Mrs Pease was eventually made redundant and she subsequently brought a claim for unfair dismissal and a claim for maternity discrimination. Her claim stated that she had been sent an important email to her work email account, which - as she was on maternity leave - she did not use. As a result of this, she missed being considered for redeployment by a period of nine days.

The Employment Tribunal agreed that she had been disadvantaged - meaning that she missed three job opportunities - which they attributed to the ignorance of the email requiring her to inform HR of her details. It was concluded that the Trust had discriminated against Mrs Pease because she was on maternity leave and she was awarded £5,000 compensation.

The Trust appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, who upheld the previous ruling that this amounted to unfavourable treatment by her employer.

It overruled, however, the initial Employment Tribunal’s verdict that it also amounted to discrimination as, although the way in which Mrs Pease was treated would not have happened if she had not been on maternity leave, the Employment Tribunal had not considered whether her maternity leave was the reason why she was unfairly treated. The Employment Tribunal should have gone into the reason why the disadvantage occurred and enquired as to whether the person who sent the email in the first place had any discriminatory motive in mind. The Employment Appeal Judge added that the evidence given at the Tribunal hearing suggested that the mistake with the email was down to an administrative error and nothing more. He then sent the case back to the Employment Tribunal to consider why the email was sent to the work email account.

New analysis by the BBC suggests that the gender pay gap is getting worse - and critics say that making businesses report their inequality is not enough.

According to the results, four in ten private companies that have published their latest gender pay gap figures have reported wider gaps than last year. It was found that male employees - in every sector of business - were paid more.  

Of the companies that have reported up to now, 74 per cent have a pay gap that favours men and only 14 per cent favour women. However, the utilities company Npower blamed their pay gap increase from 13% to 18% on the fact that more female than male employees are choosing to go for a salary sacrifice scheme.

Npower company spokesperson said:

“Npower implemented a cost reduction programme in 2017 which, along with the trend of more women than men taking advantage of salary sacrifice employee benefits designed to promote flexible working, had an impact on the pay gap.”

Car mechanics chain, Kwik Fit - in 2017 - had a negative gender pay gap of minus 15.2 per cent, showing that their female employees were paid more, but its 2018 figures show a 14 per cent median gender pay gap in favour of men. They attribute this to a number of senior female employees leaving the company.  

A spokesperson for Kwik Fit said:

“We are keen to both promote from within the company as well as recruit more women to help redress this balance.”

Financial Services is one of the worst performing sectors, with several banks -including Lloyds Banking Group and RBS - reporting median gender pay gaps in excess of 30 per cent. According to the research, the construction industry is also showing a high median gender pay gap of around 26 per cent.

Martha McKinley - Solicitor at law firm Stephensons - remarked on the fact that the growth in the gaps at some companies signalled how challenging it is to deal with pay imbalances.

She said:

“The introduction of this type of reporting makes the issue more transparent and forces employers to sit up, take notice and hopefully take action. It will be interesting to see how the land lies after the April 4th reporting deadline.”

Rebecca Hilsenrath - Chief Executive to the Equality and Human Rights Commission - said:

“Transparency is brilliant and the first year of gender pay gap reporting has had an immense impact in raising awareness of workplace equality, but the truth is that transparency is not enough. Just reporting figures is not going to eliminate anyone’s pay gap.

Now that employers have met their legal duty to report their pay gaps, they should have worked out what has caused them and what they need to do to narrow them.  We believe that it should be mandatory for employers to publish, alongside their pay gap data, action plans with specific targets and deadlines.”

Sam Smethers - Chief Executive of the Fawcett Society - agreed and told the Telegraph:

“Initial findings look worrying with 40 per cent of those who have already reported showing pay gaps widening not narrowing.  Women will be wondering what is going on. We need to require employers to publish action plans that we can hold them accountable to.”

Ten million workers in the UK will now see more of their wages automatically diverted to a pension, starting from 6 April 2019 when the workplace pension scheme will rise again - to a total of 8%.

The Government is giving a tax relief to those contributing to their pension. For basic rate payers, a £100 contribution to the pension will cost £80 - due to the 20% tax relief - and higher tax brackets will receive a larger percentage of relief.

However, it will mean less take-home pay for people who are automatically enrolled into a workplace pension - a person earning £30,000 per annum will pay an extra £32 a month into their pension. This has caused experts to worry that these employees will see the short term income loss as a reason to opt out of the auto-enrolment.

Employees are being urged to remain enrolled in the scheme to reap the long term benefits, as an annual pension contribution of 8% of salary, from the age of 30, could mean £125,000 in their pension pot at retirement.

Analysts say that by choosing to opt-out of this automatic pension saving, workers would actually lose out on the money their employer puts into their pension pot.

Tom Selby - Senior Analyst at investment company AJ Bell - stated:

"Anyone who chooses to opt-out is basically taking a voluntary pay cut. If you turn down the matched contribution from an employer you won't get it back elsewhere."

Advice for workers who are worried about what happens when they move employers is that most modern pension schemes are portable - meaning it can be moved through employers, roles and industries. Moving employers does not mean the pot will be lost.

Michelle Gribbin - Chief Investment Officer at Profile Pensions - advises:

“The workplace pension scheme is to the benefit of UK employees and designed to help everyone prepare for their financial future. Together, the employer contribution, tax relief and investment growth offer the ability to significantly increase the value of your money for a time in your life when you will really need it.

Straightforward pension advice is a vital step in the personal finance education process. When people really understand what these contributions mean, where they come from and how opting-out impacts their financial future, they become empowered to make their own informed decisions and potentially be over £125,000 better off in retirement.”

According to analysis by national accountancy group UHY Hacker Young - after a Freedom of Information request - it was found that HMRC (Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs) has made 84 separate investigations into under-payment of the apprenticeship levy in 2018/19.

The HMRC collected £6.2m through these investigations last year - an increase from £5.2m in 2017/18 - but they state that collectively businesses have underpaid £13.6m in 2017/2018.

As part of the apprenticeship levy, businesses running a payroll over £3m must pay 0.5 per cent of their total wage bill (minus £15,000 allowance) into a fund to be used for government approved training schemes. As these schemes do not always match their requirements, some businesses perceive the apprenticeship levy to be an extra employment tax. Research showed that more than £3bn of funding has not yet been taken up - data from HMRC indicated that only £480m had been used by 30th November 2018.

At the beginning of the year, a survey by the City and Guilds found that of the 745 levy-paying companies polled, 92 per cent reported they would like greater flexibility in how they spent the funds - 45 per cent said they would like to be able to allocate the funds to non-apprenticeship training courses.

UHY Hacker Young stated that a number of employers found the levy complicated - which meant that they accidentally underpaid, leaving them open to possible fines.

HMRC has the power to fix penalties for inaccuracy of up to 30 per cent of the amount owed for unintended non-payment. Deliberate avoidance of the levy can attract a fine of up to 100 per cent of the outstanding amount.

Clive Gawthorpe - Partner at UHY Hacker Young - stated that the increase in investigations suggested that HMRC had initially been focusing on larger businesses but is now also including smaller businesses.

He added:

“We have seen additional problems arise among large businesses where several different parts of the same business group may be liable to pay the levy. The high number of investigations HMRC is launching into underpayment is a symptom of the wider problems that are hampering the scheme’s effectiveness. These urgently need addressing.” 

The Institute of Directors have brought to notice the new levy reforms which will come into effect next month. These will present greater flexibility in the use of funds.

In his spring statement the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, announced that the amount SME’s will be expected to contribute towards training apprentices will drop from 10 per cent to 5 per cent, which he claimed would bring businesses a saving of £695m. He also brought forward the increase in the amount of levy funding that businesses will be allowed to share with their supply chain - an increase from 10 per cent to 25 per cent.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has proposed a new rule affecting overtime eligibility.

The salary threshold for employees eligible to collect time-and-a-half pay for hours worked over 40 in a work week, would increase but would still be fewer than the one the Obama administration attempted to enact in 2016 – which was struck down by a federal district judge in Texas before it was to have taken effect.

Under the new proposal exempt employees would have to earn at least $679 a week or $35,308 a year to be classified as exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. That is higher than the current level in which employees must earn at least $455 a week or $23,660 a year, the threshold that has been in place since 2004.

Executive, administrative or professional employees would become exempt from overtime requirements from $23,660 to $35,308, a big difference from the $913 per week - or $47,476 per year - set by the previous administration.

In addition to the salary test, exempt employees must also pass the duties test - in other words, they must perform work that is executive, administrative, or professional.

Employers would be able to satisfy up to 10 per cent of the salary minimum through nondiscretionary incentives and/or commissions that are paid annually, more frequently, or even in a catch-up payment at the end of the year.

The threshold for exemption as a ‘highly compensated employee’ would rise to $147,414 in total annual compensation - higher than the Obama administration’s threshold of $134,004.  

If the proposal comes into force, the employers of workers who are no longer exempt - based on their level of compensation - will have to decide whether to pay overtime or increase the salaries to over the threshold.

Kara Shea - an attorney with Butler Snow LLP in Nashville, Tennessee and coeditor of Tennessee Employment Law Letter - said:

“Increasing pay will not be enough if the employee is not performing exempt job duties. Employers should first make sure the employees are correctly classified to begin with, based on job duties, before they decide whether to preserve the exemption by raising pay.”

Attorney Alexander Passantino of Seyfarth Shaw, commented:

“Paying overtime on $125,000 per year is a huge economic burden, but it still may be less expensive than going to the new level.”

The new rule will be up for public comment for 60 days and could be revised or challenged in court again - but as it calls for less drastic change than the previous proposal, it is thought more likely to succeed.

A new survey from SD Worx - provider of global payroll and HR services - has looked into the extent of the digitisation of the workplace. The result showed that UK employees cannot do enough basic HR admin tasks on mobile devices. On average, only 12 per cent of HR admin tasks are possible on mobile devices only - and 49 per cent are still completed offline.

Of the tasks that can currently be undertaken electronically, 14 per cent request leave electronically only, whilst 30 per cent still submit non-digitally. A further 13 per cent complete the job through both fixed and mobile devices and 43 per cent by fixed devices only. This was found to be the most popular administrative task to be completed digitally.

Only 13 per cent of UK employees submit expenses on a mobile only and 40 per cent still submit expenses non-electronically.

Employees not working digitally spend too long on HR admin tasks, preventing them from completing more valuable work - and ultimately having a negative impact on employee engagement.

Employees were shown to want to do more HR admin digitally, with the UK scoring highest for those wanting digital HR tasks. The survey also showed that what people have the option to undertake digitally is different according to their work location. Out of the countries surveyed, Germany was found to score lower across all categories, with the UK and the Netherlands coming out on top across the activities that employees can currently do digitally.

Of those surveyed in the UK, 59 per cent can submit expenses online, compared to only 33 per cent in Germany where employees appear to be the least concerned out of the six countries surveyed. Where requesting and arranging business travel is concerned, 55 per cent of UK employees are able to do it digitally – but only 36 per cent in Belgium.

In general, the UK had the highest number of respondents wanting the ability to do more tasks digitally at work, suggesting that the more access they have to carry out work electronically, the more they want to see these options increase in the workplace.

Brenda Morris, Managing Director of SD Worx UKI stated:

“Nearly all areas of our lives have been changed by technology. While it’s been the case in our personal lives for some time now, in some instances it’s been slow to take hold in the workplace. As seen in this report, employees want to be able to carry out basic HR admin on mobile but they are not always given the opportunity to do so. In order to keep employees engaged and productive, it is vital for employers to listen to these concerns and adapt to this new way of working.”

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.”

Prospects for HR roles are looking healthy - a recent Glassdoor report has ranked the role of HR Manager among the top ten most desirable roles in the UK, with a high rating for job satisfaction.

However, it was pointed out that HR specialists cannot afford to stand still if they want to remain current and marketable to employers. During a recent CIPD careers event, it was suggested that they focus on transferable skills, getting experience of different disciplines - even if it is just as a short term project - and find alternative ways to gain knowledge.

Recently speaking at a CIPD careers event, Ruth Stuart - Head of Strategy Development - remarked that it is impossible to predict accurately what HR roles will look like, going forward.   She stated that she did not think they needed to worry too much regarding the greatly talked about advance of the robots - artificial Intelligence will undoubtedly make a big difference to the way tasks and processes are managed - but the future of HR will still be human.

She highlighted the five key skills that will stand HR people in good stead for the future:

Remaining calm and clear headed and making the right decision for the situation at hand is a key skill. HR managers frequently have to cope with awkward situations and there are no easy answers.

Commercial awareness is a competence that HR is often unfairly accused of lacking. The most successful will have a clear understanding of their organisation’s business model and the risks and reputational challenges it faces – together with an in-depth knowledge of the way the business creates value.

A World Economic Forum report has dubbed critical thinking as one of the most important skills for the future world of work and HR will require the ability and the courage to question and challenge - where necessary - decisions that are being made within the business.

Digital literacy is one area where HR professionals are not alone in acknowledging they need to raise their game. They also need to learn how to exploit data to support better decision making within the business on everything from recruitment and workforce planning to e-learning and employee engagement.

Lastly, Ruth Stuart stated that in the last year alone everything from environmental, whistle blowing and money laundering scandals had been reported. HR needs to develop the skills to deal with inappropriate behaviour of all kinds and employees should be able to speak out without fear of negative consequences.

It is suggested that career success in the future will depend on HR practitioners being principles-led, evidence-based and outcomes driven.

In January Republican Rosa DeLauro introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act, a measure intended to strengthen equal pay protections for women.

The landmark Equal Pay Act of 1963 had made it illegal for employers to pay unequal wages to men and women who perform substantially equal work, but these laws have not closed the persistent gap between men’s and women’s wages.

Women who work full time are paid, on average, only 80 per cent of every dollar paid to men. This happens in every state - regardless of geography, occupation, education or work patterns.

The proposed Paycheck Fairness Act would ban employers nationwide from asking job applicants about their salary history and employers would be required to prove that any pay gaps between men and women are legitimately job-related.

With regard to employees, the Paycheck Fairness Act would protect against retaliation for discussing salaries with colleagues and prohibit employers from screening job applicants based on their salary history - or for requiring salary history during the interview process.

In addition, it would provide plaintiffs who file sex-based wage discrimination claims under the Equal Pay Act, with the same remedies as are available to plaintiffs who file race or ethnicity based wage discrimination claims under the Civil Rights Act; remove obstacles in the Equal Pay Act to facilitate plaintiffs’ participation in class action lawsuits that challenge systemic pay discrimination and create a negotiation skills training program for women and girls.

On February 13th during a joint hearing of two U.S. House of Representatives Education and Labor subcommittees, Republican Suzanne Bonamici, D-Ore pointed out that equal pay for equal work - regardless of sex - is a fundamental concept that has been a part of the law for more than half a century, but women still face barriers to equal pay.

She went on to say that it is difficult to prove pay discrimination, especially when businesses keep information about wages and raises a secret - and that discriminatory pay practices are keeping some women in poverty.

Republican Bradley Byrne, R-Ala, whilst agreeing that women deserve equal pay for equal work, said that the Paycheck Fairness Act offers no new protections against pay discrimination. He added that it also imposes an inflexible mandate on employers that strictly limits their communications with employees during the hiring process, but that it would be a "cash cow" for the attorneys of plaintiffs' by making it easier to sue employers - resulting in long legal battles for the women who bring claims.

Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York said that the bill would force employers to make salaries transparent and stop them from asking about pay history.

She said,

"It is time that we pay people what they are worth and not how little they are desperate enough to accept. And that has nothing to do with their history - it has everything to do with what they are worth today”.

On 5th February 2019, an event was jointly held by the CIPD and the High Pay Centre, where an expert panel suggested that HR should play a more powerful role on remuneration committees (RemCo).

The event was set up to accompany the recent RemCo Reform report from the CIPD. This report made a case for RemCos to grow into broader people and culture committees, overseeing pay and setting it in the context of genuine performance and business value.

Speakers argued for a greater voice for HR professionals on the committees that set pay strategies, with a view to curbing soaring pay among senior executives.

At the heart of the discussion was the news that the average FTSE 100 CEO is now paid £3.92m a year - a figure which has risen 11% in the past 12 months - and is way above the increase enjoyed by the UK workforce as a whole.

Luke Hildyard - Executive Director of the High Pay Centre - stated that there were far more people from marketing backgrounds than HR professionals serving on remuneration committees.

He added;

“When you think about the insights that people from HR could bring in terms of reward and motivation...that seems to be remiss. The HR perspective is missing in RemCos.”

Shadow Business Secretary - Rebecca Long-Bailey - told delegates;

“Time and again, we hear about record-breaking pay packets for so-called fat cat bosses. We have the slowest wage growth among G20 countries, but that hasn’t been the case for executive pay at the very top and that’s not fair. The prime minister has said it’s not anti-business to suggest big business needs to change on remuneration. For once, I agree with her.”

Iain Wright - Director of Corporate and Regional Engagement at accounting body ICAEW and former Chair of the parliamentary business select committee - said executive pay had become, “.......like a virility symbol, a statement of a company’s ambition”.

He added:

“........how much do we need to be paying to attract the best, while also being mindful of our responsibility to the company, to other staff and to society in general?”

Long-term incentive plans came in for heavy criticism with Sandy Pepper - Professor of Management Practice at the London School of Economics - stating that there was evidence that long-term incentive plans were a major factor in inflating executive pay. He said the cost of a long-term incentive plan was greater than the value placed on it by a senior executive - which was the opposite of what companies were trying to do.

He added:

“They are value destroyers.”

Louise Fisher - Chair of the CIPD and member of its remuneration committee - writes that HR data and insights are key to effective RemCo practice, and that means committees need high quality HR leaders to execute their responsibilities.

KMPG LLP recently conducted a survey of over 2,000 professional women with full time white-collar jobs in the U.S. This demonstrated that - whilst women are willing to take on what they consider small risks such as a new project or pitching an idea - they are less inclined to engage in bigger risk taking such as asking for a higher salary or moving for a job.

The survey showed that 69 per cent of women will take on a small risk to further their career and 43 per cent will take on bigger risks where these are associated with career advancement. However, as women become more experienced and attain more self-confidence, their inclination to take risks declines - with 45 percent of women with less than five years of experience open to taking big career risks - and only 37 percent of women with 15 or more years of experience willing to do so. 

Michele Meyer-Shipp - Chief Diversity Officer at KPMG, Newark NJ - said:

“When it comes to their careers, many women find themselves in a bit of a bind. They’re trying to preserve their gains, so instead of playing to win, they’re often playing not to lose – whether hesitating to take perceived big risks, or feeling the need to take outsized chances.”

More than half - 55 per cent of the respondents to the survey - acknowledged that those who take career risks progress more quickly than those who do not, thereby developing new skills and earning the respect of colleagues. According to 40 per cent of those surveyed, the biggest incentive is the opportunity to make more money, although only 35 per cent said they were confident about requesting a higher salary from their employer.

Only 8 percent of respondents said that risk taking has been most valuable in their professional success, citing other task-oriented factors over leadership traits – such as, 73 per cent stated working hard; 45 per cent said being detail oriented and 45 percent said organized. Attributes such as being strong-willed, creative or a good leader were low on the list of accomplishments and only 43 percent say they have talked about what they have attained over the past three years.

Doug Sundheim - author of Taking Smart Risks When the Stakes Are High - is of the opinion that women are risk takers but are not seen that way as the risks are defined in physical and financial terms.

He wrote in Harvard Business Review:

"Those terms don't point to risks like standing up for what's right in the face of opposition, or taking the ethical path when there's pressure to stray - important risks that I've found women are particularly strong at taking." 

In the survey, the small risks that KPMG asked women if they were confident in taking included voicing a point of view or opinion - even if it conflicts with others; taking action to raise their visibility - such as attending a networking event and offering to mentor or sponsor someone they did not know well. The big risks were cited as requesting a more flexible or accommodating working situation; questioning the status quo and re-entering the workforce if planning to leave it for a while.

Although women are less confident about requesting a salary increase, the study found that money is the top motivation for taking a career risk and a supervisor who encourages employees to try new things also prompts risk taking.

Respondents stated that they would like to see more encouragement and support from their organizations for risks taken and the failures that may result.

Michele Meyer-Shipp remarked:

“Women may benefit by taking more risks over the course of their careers, but they can’t go it alone. Organizations must provide supportive structures including inclusive and diverse workplaces, professional development, mentorship and sponsorship opportunities, all of which set up women to achieve, thrive and reach the highest levels.”

New research from Paychex - a leading provider of integrated human capital management solutions - went directly to employees, not employers, to gain their perspective on what shapes an organization.

This research could be useful for any HR professional who wonders what the employees are thinking about benefits, retirement, pay equity, ghosting, HR technology and corporate social responsibility, etc. The survey was conducted on 750 full-time employees working in companies with 1,000 workers or fewer across the United States.

Maureen Lally - Paychex Vice President of Marketing - said:

"As businesses shift into the future of work, it's as important as ever to understand employees' workplace expectations, challenges, and requirements. While employers can implement changes from the top, employees ultimately define what the American workplace looks like. Their habits, preferences, and behaviors are what shape company culture.”

On the most complicated aspect of making annual benefit elections, of those surveyed 29 per cent said that it was keeping up with plan changes and 28 per cent stated attempting to envisage personal and family needs. Evaluating all of the providers and plan options was also cited by 28 per cent of the respondents - with 33 per cent of women stating that trying to predict personal and family needs when making benefits selections is the number one most complicated. For men, however, that appeared at 24 per cent - ranking third.  

With regard to retirement savings, 51 per cent of employees feel confident in their levels but 25 per cent added the qualification that their confidence is dependent on Social Security remaining intact. As employees get older - those aged 50-65 years - their confidence in their retirement savings increases to 58 percent.

Regardless of gender, 48 per cent of employees surveyed say that at least once during their career, they have expressed verbal or written concern to their current employer that their rate of pay was not equitable to another employee with a similar role and responsibilities.  

Referring to the auditing of employee pay for gender equity, 77 per cent of men and 74 per cent of women are confident that their employer is acting on this.

Of the employees surveyed, 71 per cent state that they expect their employers to give them a high level of employee self service - to enable them to complete HR tasks (such as update addresses, fill out tax forms, etc.) independently. Of these employees, 85 per cent expect that the self-service applications will be similar to the consumer apps used in their personal lives.

When questioned about leaving a current job or not reporting for a new job without informing the employer, 27 per cent of employees admitted that they had done so. In the age group 18 - 34 years, 33 per cent stated that they had ‘ghosted’; 30 per cent in the 35 - 49 years group and only 7 per cent in the 50 - 65 years of age group.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) - caring about the impact the business and its employees have on things like the environment and the well-being of the local community or region - is extremely important to all employees, regardless of their age, with the lowest percentage being 90 per cent.

Laurie Zaucha - Paychex Vice President of HR and Organizational Development - stated:

"CSR is an important driver in attracting and retaining talent for companies today. More than ever before, candidates research prospective employers before applying and are looking for organizations whose values align with theirs."

The latest research from Tempo - an end to end hiring platform that uses video, intelligent matching and automation to connect great candidates with temporary and permanent jobs - showed that three in ten millennial workers have, so far, had five or more different jobs in their careers.

More than 2,000 UK employees took part in the poll and it was found that 28% of those between 18 and 34 years of age had already worked at more than five jobs, with the average millennial worker having had 3.4 different jobs. Those in the over 55 years of age bracket had been employed in 5.9 jobs.

The region of Northern Ireland showed that 16% of respondents reported having had ten jobs or more - making that the area where the most job moves took place.

The survey also reveals that millennial workers are striving to progress in their career paths and not just seeking new jobs - with 52% stating that they plan to move within the next two years and 34% hoping to move within the next year. Tempo’s research showed that 64% of under-35 year old workers wish to change sectors - against 39% of 35 - 55 years old workers.

The reasons cited for changing to other jobs was shown to be different according to sexes and generations, with 83% of over 55 years old workers stating salary as one of their top three incentives for changing roles. However, of the millennial workers surveyed, only 67% gave this as one of their top reasons.

Where the sexes were concerned, 46% of women cited flexible working as a priority against 29% of men - 23% of whom gave career progression as important against 15% of women.

Ben Chatfield - CEO and Co-Founder at Tempo - remarked:

“Employers have found it notoriously difficult to understand millennials and their outlook on work. As a consequence, they have struggled to meet their needs. This generation has a different appetite for learning and self-improvement. They don’t see a portfolio career as “job hopping” as older generations might. Instead, change an opportunity to develop key skills and try something new.”

He added:

“There are multiple advantages to have a diverse job background. People who embrace variety are more adaptable, likely to have a range of soft skills, and a wider pool of professional contacts. Employers must realise the opportunity they present and do more to attract them. This means creating a recruitment system that supports a flexible employment structure and enables them to hire at speed.

UK software provider Cascade HR recently surveyed 423 HR directors with reference to what they regard as being their biggest challenges in 2019.

For the second year running - of the respondents surveyed - 40% identified engagement of staff as the major issue, with recruitment and retention of existing staff coming a close second and third at 36% and 37%.

At 29%, absence management was quoted as being another of the main challenges - whilst 22% cited wellbeing as the main focal point.

HR directors, managers and executives were also asked to indicate which their toughest problems were during the previous year and the results showed 45% cited recruitment; 36% retention and thirdly, 35% GDPR compliance.

Fortunately, despite finding retention difficult, 35% of HR teams feel that they had success in that area - as, indeed 32% also did in wellbeing; 32% in L&D and 30% in diversity.

Where GDPR is concerned, 66% of respondents stated that it had been tricky - but manageable.

Oliver Shaw - CEO of Cascade - showed a particular interest in the results of the HR replies to questions about automation - with 46% of respondents believing that automation is extremely important for the HR department to become more efficient; 29% thinking it had a partial role to play and only 2% stating that it is not important in their business.

He commented:

“HR has embraced automation and machine learning on varying levels this year. But there is a clear desire to know more about the power of tech.”

Head of Sales - Marc Greggain - commented:

“It is important that HR professionals can cut through the A1 hype and understand how to benefit from things like automation, predictive analytics and workforce planning, without losing the ‘human’ from Human Resources. Their existing HR software will invariably hold the answer.”

Despite not being the most common subject, Brexit figured in the survey with 52% of HR professionals stating that they are slightly worried about the uncertainty and the impact of leaving the EU. However, only 19% said they are extremely worried.

Oliver Shaw stated:

“It’s been an interesting year for UK organisations, with Brexit, compliance and employment tribunals dominating the headlines. But I believe some of the most pivotal developments have surrounded the future of work debate.”

He added:

“This year, the HR landscape has seen employees push back on the traditional nine-to-five more than ever before. Flexible working has stepped up a notch, and organisations that bury their head in the sand when it comes to what staff wants from employment will be those that struggle the most with recruitment and retention in 2019.”

A new calendar year often brings resignations as employees seek a change in career, but new research has shown that a festive bonus could improve staff retention.

Rewards and incentives specialists - One4allRewards - recently surveyed a total of 1,096 UK employees. It was found that 46% of the respondents admitted that a December bonus or gift from their HR bosses had persuaded them to remain loyal to their employer by not searching for a new job, or allowing themselves to be poached. Additionally, 45% stated that they would be less likely to accept a new job even if offered one.

According to the research, December is the ideal time to thank the top performers as employees appreciated bonuses more during this month - leading up to the festive season - than any other.  

Workers are more likely to look for a new job in January than any other month of the year, so December bonuses could not be timed better for staff retention purposes.

UK managing director at One4all Rewards - Alan Smith - said:

“It’s interesting to see just how far a token bonus can impact on the loyalty of those in the HR industry. Even if you just consider the amount of money that can be lost through recruitment costs when a member of staff resigns – never mind the softer negative impacts and knock-on effects that employees leaving can have, in terms of morale in the workplace – it is clearly something that is worth investing in.”

He added:

“And thanks to HM Revenue and Customs’ recent introduction of tax exemptions on trivial benefits of £50 per employee or less, it has never been more affordable for businesses to gift staff a little something to make sure they feel valued, ahead of the busiest time of the year for staff departures.”

The Chartered Management Institute - in their research - found that the average bonus payment to directors has slumped by 16% since last year, from an average of £53,504 to £44,987. This decline in rewards has happened in spite of the stressful working culture experienced by many managers.

Although the cost of December staff bonuses may seem high to some, it is dwarfed by the cost of replacing staff - not to mention negative impact and knock-on effects that employees leaving can have in terms of morale in the workplace.

New research shows that 69% of UK employees are currently unhappy at work.  

The purpose of the report is to gather insights from the “non-work related activities” campaign survey results. This survey was carried out on behalf of Hitachi Capital Invoice Finance and includes responses from 2101 individuals, focusing on how much time people spend at work doing non-work related activities; what these activities are and if they waste time at work because they are unhappy in their job.

In addition, respondents were asked if they thought their managers were lenient and what would make them feel more motivated to perform better and to be more productive.

To identify any trends, gender; age; industry worked and the region they reside in, were collected.

Of the 2,101 respondents surveyed, 61% said that the biggest distraction at work is gossiping to other co-workers. This was followed by 45% who said they spent time on Facebook and 44% using personal email.

Other admissions included 35% clock-watching; 29% making drinks or spending time in the kitchen to make the day go quicker; 25% using shopping and banking apps; 19% looking for other jobs and 17% taking bathroom breaks when not always needed.

The study shows that personal mental health is the largest distraction for younger workers aged 16-24, with 35% distracted by related symptoms when trying to work and younger employees tending to be unhappier at work than those that are older. Of those aged 55 and over, 43% stated they are always happy at work - compared to 22% of those aged between 16-24 years.

In general, men appear to be happier at work than women - 67% of men state they are unhappy against 71% of women.

The happiest at work are those in the East of England where 36% said they are happy - with the North West being the least happy at 22%.

Of those admitting to not doing their proper work, HR came out in front with 33% spending over two hours wasting time, compared to Education at 8% - the most dedicated industry.

Most people think that their manager is lenient with only 20% of them thinking that that their manager was not.

The older the person, the more productive they are and the less distracted they get. However, older people did tend to find that their managers are less lenient.

Andy Dodd - Managing Director at Hitachi Capital Invoice Finance - commented:

“Our survey has also highlighted that employees feel least motivated at work during winter, which is likely due to the weather, dark nights and activities that take place during this time. Although it can be hard as a business owner to energise staff all-year round, it’s important to take small steps to ensure that you are doing what you can to promote an exciting and rewarding culture in the workplace. This can be anything from improving internal communications within a business to effective incentive schemes.”

The Supreme Court has ruled that basing a disabled employee’s pension on the number of hours he worked – due to his disability – did not amount to discrimination.

In the case of Andrew Williams v The Trustees of Swansea University Pension & Assurance Scheme and another, the Court of Appeal considered for the first time what it means to be treated unfavourably under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.

Swansea University employed Mr Williams from June 2000 until his retirement on the grounds of ill-health in June 2013. He suffered from a disability - which fell within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 - causing him to reduce his working hours to part-time working and then to take retirement at the age of 38, on the grounds of ill-health.

During his employment with Swansea University he was an active member of the Swansea University Pension Scheme and was entitled to an ill-health early retirement pension under the Scheme, which was a DB scheme. At the time that Mr Williams retired, the accrual rate was on the basis of Career Average Revalued Earnings and an element of the benefits was calculated by reference to final salary. Therefore, as he had been working on a part-time basis, the benefits were lower than they would have been if he had been in full-time employment when retiring due to ill-health.

Mr Williams complained to the Employment Tribunal against the trustees of the Scheme and Swansea University. He stated that - by using his part-time salary rather than a full-time equivalent - the calculation of the enhancement to his benefits after June 2013 amounted to unlawful discrimination arising from disability under sections 15 and 61[1] of the EA 2010.

An initial tribunal concluded that he had not been treated fairly since his disability was the reason he was working part-time at the point of retirement, which then led to his reduced pension benefits. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) disagreed - with Judge Langstaff saying:

“Mr Williams’ reasoning could not possibly be sufficient to establish disability discrimination. If it were, it would be difficult to see why it would not apply to a disabled claimant who applies for and secures a part time job because that is as much as he can manage, but would otherwise have worked full time.”

However, the Supreme Court has now dismissed the first ruling, stating that calculating a disabled employee’s pension based on the reduced hours he worked due to his disability did not amount to discrimination.

When commenting on the decision, Employment Partner at Trowers & Hamlins - Nicola Ihnatowicz - said:

“The policy behind an employer's duty to make reasonable adjustments is to help overcome barriers and disadvantages faced by disabled employees at work. It is not uncommon for employees who are suffering from a disability to reduce their hours, and correspondingly their pay, as a reasonable adjustment which enables them to continue working.  If the employee then takes ill-health retirement, it is likely that the provisions of any defined benefit pension scheme will base the pension on their final reduced salary at retirement or a career average, without requiring employers to incur the significant cost of making up the difference.”

A new law prohibiting employers from asking job candidates about their salary history took effect on January 1, 2019 in Connecticut. It bars employers from asking job applicants how much they earn currently - or previously.

Connecticut Governor, Dannel P. Malloy, signed off Public Act No. 18-8 – ‘An Act Concerning Pay Equity’ on May 22, 2018 – to take effect on January 1, 2019. This made Connecticut the sixth state to prohibit employers from asking applicants about salary history and is intended to help remedy the pay gap between men and women. 

At that time, Dannel Malloy said:

“Income inequity is perpetuated by the practice of asking for salary history before an offer is made, which can disproportionately assure that women are underpaid at their first job and continue to be underpaid throughout their careers, creating a cycle of poverty.”

The new law states that prospective employees may not be asked about past wages and compensation histories at any point during the hiring process - although they can choose to volunteer such information. Also, prospective employees may be asked generally whether the previous employer had stock options or other equity incentives, but may not be asked to specify the value of such benefits.

In addition, the new act will add prospective employees to those entitled to sue employers who infringe any of these legal protections. Employees and prospective employees - whether or not they are hired - will be authorized to sue within two years after any alleged violation. Employers found liable for violations may be required to pay compensatory damages; attorney's fees; costs and punitive damages and may also be subject to any legal and equitable relief that the court decides is just and proper.

Although the intention of the law is to reduce pay gaps that disadvantage women, it also applies to men. Employers cannot ask men or women what they make or used to make. It does, however, contain an exception for employers, employment agencies and employees who must ask for salary information under federal or state law.

An employer is generally defined as anyone or anything that can be thought of as an employer - unlike other laws that apply only to businesses that have a certain number of employees.  

Global Human Resources Consulting firm Mercer forecasts that - for the first time ever - nearly one third of a trillion pounds will be paid by UK private sector defined benefit pension schemes over the three year period 2019 - 2021.

This record amount is due to large numbers of active and deferred members being expected to transfer the value of their entitlement to another arrangement, plus a rapidly growing buy-in and buy-out market where the forecast is for unprecedented premium volumes to be paid to insurers - with more than £20bn of defined benefit pension scheme obligations being insured.

Mercer expects the result of these payments to lead to private sector defined benefit pension scheme in aggregate being better funded with a lower risk profile.

Andrew Ward - Partner at Mercer - stated:

“A third of a trillion pounds is a huge sum of money and shows how the UK’s DB pension landscape is changing rapidly. In aggregate, UK company DB schemes are expected to be better funded and bear less risk in three years’ time. There are headwinds, not least the potential for Brexit to disrupt the landscape, but the direction of travel is clear.

As the UK DB landscape further matures, there is potential for an emerging DB Consolidator market. How this will impact the amount paid by DB schemes depends on how the new offerings are received by scheme sponsors and trustees. The recent consultation announced by the Department of Work and Pensions and the Pensions Regulator’s guidance will propel discussion in this area.”

Mercer Partner - David Ellis - commented:

“Better funded and increasingly mature pension schemes have taken advantage of excellent pricing from insurers in 2018. Mercer expects the buy-in and buy-out market to smash the record again in 2019 as well-organised schemes take advantage of attractive pricing from insurers. Overall, Mercer forecasts DB schemes will pay around £90bn in premiums to insurers over the next three years.”

Mercer also highlighted how aggregate transfer values of around £20bn for the whole of 2018, based on data for the first three quarters, will be far more than the £3bn annual average.

According to the latest report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are now more job openings - 6.6 million as of June 1 - than there are unemployed people - 6.1 million - making job seekers and workers in the driver's seat in today’s market.

This has resulted in no-shows and mysterious disappearances happening nationally across a wide range of industries - known as ghosting.

Many HR professionals and hiring managers are baffled when great job candidates either do not respond to calls, texts and e-mails about a job offer; do not show up to work or - having been hired - walk out without a word, never to be heard from again.

Michelle Madhok, CEO and founder of Shefinds.com - stated:

"Job candidates have been ghosting lately. There was a woman we interviewed several times. She came in, did a presentation and expressed excitement in a follow-up email. I was going to make her an offer, but she vanished. She wouldn't respond to the recruiter either. I don't get it. Just say you are going somewhere else or decided to do something different!"

Eugene Hunt - Principal of At Trevi Communications Inc. in Danvers, Mass. says that managers no longer get too excited when their company receives an e-mail from a well-qualified candidate. He states:

"Now we see every applicant as another move in a game of chance, since the odds are about 1 in 4 that they will go through the process without becoming distracted or disengaged-and disconnect-at some point."  He added that:

“….it is a case of a buyer's market … with myriad opportunities and no consequences if you just walk away from an employer or job offer without ever communicating or engaging."

However, management is known to be notorious for ghosting - they tell you that they want to hire you - they want to move fast - and then you never hear from them again. There are many examples of candidates who have applied for jobs, been interviewed and even been asked to write proposals. Once sent, HR is never to be heard from again.

Susan Hosage, SHRM-SCP, Senior Consultant and Executive Coach for OneSource HR Solutions in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. Recruiters commented:

"For years, candidates anxiously awaited responses from employers after meticulously preparing their resumes and cover letters, attending interviews and then-cricket sounds-nothing. Recruiters dodged phone calls and deleted messages from candidates who wanted to know their hiring status. Now, the tables have turned."

Susan Hosage also commented on possible reasons for ghosting by experienced candidates - lack of a sense of loyalty or obligation to the company/ managers or possibly because of a generational trend to avoid conflict.    However, she pointed out that:

"Conflict management is a necessary skill in almost any job, since most people don't work with complete autonomy."

Peter Cappelli - Professor of Management and Education at The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and director of the school's Center for HR – said:

"Employers have been ghosting applicants for decades, so I'd say turnabout is fair play.”

He suggested that employers concerned about job candidates ghosting them should give the candidates a deadline to withdraw from consideration.   He added:

“……if the problem is you think it's rude - well, now you know how candidates feel."

According to an update from the National User Group (NUG) regarding employment tribunals, some new claims may not be heard until 2020 – at the earliest. This is raising concern amongst employers that the system is losing pace.

The NUG held a meeting in September, the minutes of which stated that there had been an increase - compared to last year - of 165% in single claims. This figure repeats the recent figures from the Ministry of Justice, which advised that the number of outstanding single cases was 130% higher in the second quarter of 2018 than the same period in 2017.

Raoul Parekh, a Partner at G Q Littler, told People Management that employers should ensure – as a matter of urgency – that they have HR systems in place to stay out of the tribunal process. He said:

“If that’s not possible, one thing for employers to do is to gather and collect all notes and documents they can ahead of the tribunal hearing.”

He added that the longer the employers wait to gather the evidence, the more difficult it is to provide a defence to the case and can also increase the spending on legal advice.

During the NUG meeting, Judge Brian Doyle - President of the Employment Tribunals England and Wales - agreed that the lengthy tribunal times could be because of the reduced number of judges. He went on to say that, hopefully, the allocation of new judicial resources in 2019 would ease the problem. A recruitment campaign had been launched to recruit 54 salaried employment judges in an effort to meet the demands of the system.

However, some employment lawyers were not convinced that the appointment of the additional judges would solve the problem.

Employment law barrister at Old Square Chambers - Katherine Newton – tweeted that a colleague had a listing at Croydon Employment Tribunal for 2021 and also said that Manchester Employment Tribunal was listing 10 day hearings in 2021. She went on to remark:

“Are the 54 Employment Judges being appointed nationally in the New Year really going to make a noticeable improvement to these sorts of waiting times?”

Senior Associate at Winckworth Sherwood - Tim Goodwin - said:

“The employment tribunal system has been defunded when the fee regime collapsed. All elements of civil law have faced cuts and the government cut back on judges.”

Paul Holcroft - Associate Director at Croner - said he imagined that more employers would turn to settlements to “get rid of the issue at the earliest opportunity”. 

He added:

“While this may be good practice to get rid of the claim, it calls into question whether these delays are prohibiting access to justice, as neither party may have the opportunity to put forward their case where the matter is resolved through a settlement, for reasons of time.”

According to a survey - Voice of the Workforce in Europe - by Deloitte, more than 27 % of employees are not performing to their best and experts say that HR could play a strategic role in motivating staff – thus increasing business productivity.   The European average is 21% not attaining their finest.

The findings show that many employees lack enthusiasm - 32% of UK workers said that they are not stimulated by what they do. A further 36% said what they do is not meaningful, but in comparison24% European workers said they are not stimulated by what they do and only 18% believe what they do is not meaningful.

The report surveyed a total of more than 15,000 workers across 10 European countries, including 2,043 from the UK.

Workers in the UK said that they need to learn new skills to do their job effectively and when asked which key skills they needed to develop, 61% cited advanced IT; 57% technical knowledge; 35% said problem-solving skills and 31% said they would need teamwork skills.

It was also found that UK workers were feeling the impact of automation - 44% said that robots or software had taken over some of the tasks they did five years ago. This compared to a European average of 38%. In the UK, 34% said that entire business processes relevant to their job have been automated and this compared to 30% for European workers.

UK Human Capital Leader at Deloitte - Anne-Marie Malley - said:

“Businesses are facing an uphill struggle to address these factors, which is leading to dissatisfaction, disengagement and despondency among employees. Employers must offer more support to strengthen their workers' skills and communicate the value their roles are bringing to their company, the economy and ultimately society as a whole.”

She added:

“It’s striking that the vast majority of workers do not expect to see any significant changes in their jobs over the next decade. The reality is that the future of work is now, and automation is already affecting day-to-day roles. Awareness will provoke action, so it’s important for businesses to educate workers on how their roles will be augmented by technology over the next decade. This will provide transparency within organisations; allowing them to transition their workforces through training opportunities and bolstering the skills that will be required as a result of automation.”

Career transition ​and on boarding coach at Rebel Road Coaching, Jenn Fenwick, said that although HR departments already knew the importance of investing in skills-related training in order to boost motivation, they were being let down by the failure of organisations to invest in their employees. 

Jenn Fenwick stated:

“I think this is where HR could play a really strategic role in businesses. For them to get the budget, it’s important for HR to investigate what’s impacting staff productivity, put monetary value on it and present that number to senior leaders as a worthwhile place to put funding.”

The research found that older workers were the most motivated with 87% of those over 55 years of age saying that they went the extra mile to deliver good work. Fewer than 18 per cent reported lack of stimulation in what they do.

Managing Director of McManus HRD - Laurell Hector - commented that it was important for businesses to invest in skills development for older generations in addition to younger workers and that senior business leaders need to understand that older workers want to add value.  

She added:

“Businesses also need to look to develop all people in the business to drive performance, not just “spotting talent in younger workers.”

Pre-hire assessment specialist, ThriveMap, recently commissioned a survey of HR decision makers – the results of which showed that 93% expected culture fit to become more important with regards to hiring in 2019.

As 96% are already saying that hiring for culture fit is crucial, the topic will doubtless be well discussed in the coming year.

Predictions made by ThriveMap are that describing what culture fit is and putting procedures in place that will measure it accurately and objectively, will be the focal point for employers in 2019.

At present, only 11% of employers are satisfied with how they assess culture fit in their interview process, leaving almost nine out of ten employers struggling to come up with a system that will do this accurately over their business.

Fifty-three per cent of employees are leaving their companies because their style of working does not fit in with their organisation - costing employers valuable time and money. Employers are now becoming aware of innovative assessments that will measure - not only whether an applicant is capable of fulfilling the role - but also whether they will flourish in the business as competition for talent is expected to be fierce in 2019.

Chris Platts - Co-Founder and CEO of ThriveMap - says:

“We believe employers should consider the following areas in 2019 to ensure they hire the candidates that are the best fit for their business.

Match the recruitment process to the vacancy – decide what are the most important skills and characteristics for the vacancy and create an assessment process that measures these.

Keep the candidate journey as short as possible – a candidate’s time is important too. Don’t lose the best talent by asking them to jump through unnecessary hoops.

Tell a consistent and honest employer brand story – everything is out there about your organisation. Don’t shy away from this, but face it head on and build a narrative that hiring managers believe and embrace. This will be far more appealing to prospective employees.

Add value for candidates – recruitment is a two-way process that should benefit everyone involved. A candidate is someone who has shown a desire to work for you - respect this interest and provide practical feedback on how they performed. Word will spread, encouraging more people to want to work for an organisation that is honest and fair.”

In the case of Samantha Walker v The Co-operative Group and Mr Richard Pennycook, Manchester Employment Tribunal has ruled that Mrs Walker - former Chief HR officer of the Co-operative Group - was discriminated against. They did, however, reject claims she had been dismissed for raising concerns about being paid less than male board members.  

After an annual review that ranked her performance as only ‘partially achieved’ her employment was terminated. Judge Sherratt, the employment judge, wrote in his judgment:

“Where they seem to have had performance issues, the comparators - or male employees - were arguably not treated as harshly in their assessments as was the claimant.”

In 2014, after Mrs Walker was appointed group HR Director of strategic projects and joined a newly set up executive team, she raised concerns about her pay to the then CEO Richard Pennycook. At this time, the business was facing considerable financial instability. 

Initially, Mrs Walker was given the title of Chief HR Officer with a proposed base salary of £500,000.   However, the group remuneration and appointments committee decided to reduce her base salary to £425,000 as they took the view that she was “newly promoted to the executive and unproven at that level, unlike everyone else on the team at that time.”  

In 2014, the Co-op Group instigated a new grading system and Mrs Walker told Mr Pennycook that it was “not looking good from an equal pay perspective”, despite an independent assessment finding that her role was equal or above some of the male executives. She added that she wanted to be recognised as being – at least – of equal value to the board and Mrs Walker’s counsel at the tribunal claimed that this statement clearly implied that Mrs Walker was the victim of unequal pay. 

In December 2015, Mrs Walker was told by Mr Pennycook that “he did not think that they would authorise any more pay for her and suggested that she consider other roles such as the MD of Co-operative Funeralcare or “‘something’ with the Legal Services business.” 

Mrs Walker stated that her heart was firmly in HR and that her desire was not solely about her wish for a pay rise, but also to be recognised as equal alongside her male colleagues and she said that Mr Pennycook clearly understood that.

Two dates for Mrs Walker’s end of year review were cancelled with no explanation and – in his judgment – the judge stated:

“Thereafter, their conversations were essentially about possible other roles rather than dealing with concerns over her existing role.” 

Despite Mr Pennycook’s evidence that he had concerns about Mrs Walker’s ability to fulfill the role of Chief HR Officer, the tribunal ruled that her work was equal to her comparators and that she had been directly discriminated against on the grounds of sex in relation to her performance rating.

Mrs Walker made a statement that the company had been found wanting and that she hoped it had changed as a result. She said:

“Going through this process has also revealed to me that the law is fundamentally flawed and must change.”

A partner at CMS – Anthony Fincham – said:

“The case serves as a reminder of the consequence of any study which amounts to a job evaluation, and the difficulty of resisting its conclusions by relying on the material factor defence. Equal pay law accords a proper job evaluation study, an almost infallible status and employers commissioning one should be fully alert to the fact that they are likely to be bound to implement the results. The case also serves as a reminder that certain claims run not only against the employer but also against the individual employee who may have been responsible for the matters in question. I do not imagine that the CEO had any inkling he was exposing himself to possible legal liability as he handled what must have been a challenging situation”.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has published - in relation to pension transfer advice - its latest rules and guidance.  

The FCA is going ahead with most of the proposals put forward for consultation earlier in 2018, mainly relating to transfers from defined benefit (DB) to defined contribution (DC) pension schemes.

This consultation suggested changes to its rules and guidance on advice being offered on transferring from safeguarded benefit schemes - where there is a form of guarantee about the rate of secure pension income that the holder of the scheme will receive, or have an option to receive.

After the introduction of pension freedoms, the demand for pension transfer advice has increased considerably, as have actual transfers.   The FCA are concerned that many persons may be receiving inappropriate advice when transferring away from their DB pension and may not be aware of the valuable benefits they could lose on the transfer of their DB pension.

The new rules should provide the holders of the schemes who are considering transferring, with improved advice. The changes will include a requirement for all pension transfer specialists to be in possession of a specific qualification - for providing advice on investments - by October 2020. This will enable advisers to recognise whether the proposed pension scheme and investment solution will suit the client’s needs and objectives.

The FCA will expect all advisers to take into account the client’s approach to - and awareness of - the risks of forfeiting safeguarded benefits in exchange for flexible benefits.

The FCA’s Executive Director of Strategy and Competition - Christopher Woolard - said:

“These new rules will mean advisers have greater certainty and confidence in what we expect when they offer pension transfer advice.

We expect our interventions to improve the quality of advice which will help to reduce the number of complaints against advisory firms. We will measure consumer outcomes through our supervisory work.

Any changes to our rules on contingent charging could have implications for the supply of advice. Because of the significance of this issue to all stakeholders in the market, we will carry out further analysis and consult on new interventions if appropriate in the first half of next year.”

According to a recent report from the CIPD entitled The People Profession in 2018: UK and Ireland - HR professionals are happy and fulfilled in their work.

Almost 1,000 HR, L&D and OD professionals across the UK and Ireland were surveyed to assess the current state of the profession.  It found that 70% of respondents said their work makes them happy and 67% felt energised. Most of those working in this area feel confident exercising their judgment and 64% are of the opinion that their job gives them the opportunity to fully express themselves as a professional, giving them a sense of purpose and a meaningful career.

Over two-fifths of respondents said they regularly challenged the purpose of the jobs they were asked to carry out and felt they could propose alternatives. They based their decisions on a several factors - with 76% citing personal experience, 55% organisational data and 49% intuition.

But the research does draw attention to the fact that there is room for improvement. The professionals could be more confident in showing courage and challenging unethical practices – 28% feel there is a controversy between their professional judgment and what is expected of them, resulting in a compromise of their ethical values. Nearly a third of the respondents stated that managers in their organisation often participate in behaviour that they consider to be unethical.

The report also showed that it was important to possess the right skills, with 38% saying they could cope with more challenging duties but with16% thinking they lacked the skills required for their current role – with this increasing to 22% among those with less than six years’ experience.

Research advisor at the CIPD - Louisa Baczor - stated:

“A career in the people profession is about working with people, bringing them into the right jobs and helping them reach their potential at work. But it’s also about applying expertise in people, work and change to ensure that work is a force for good for everyone. It’s great to see so many people professionals experiencing meaning in their work and feeling confident to stand up for what they believe in. The future of the profession is exciting and will require capabilities in managing new organisational models, the supply of skills, the shaping of jobs and improving people management and organisational cultures. But the skills mismatches and ethical conflicts highlighted by the survey show that there’s no room for complacency. Continuing professional development is the key to keeping our own skills current, so we can innovate and adapt as professionals, and champion better work and working lives in all that we do.”

CIPD Chief Executive - Peter Cheese - said:

“The role of HR is becoming increasingly vital as the world of work evolves and organisations and people need to adapt. People professionals have the opportunity to shape these developments by bringing their unique insight, skills and practice to create a future of work where organisations, their people, and the communities they’re part of can all thrive. Having confidence in our own professional judgment is crucial to making better decisions in the workplace. Even though it might challenge some of the norms or expectations, having the self-assurance with knowledge, insights and evidence, to make good and fair judgments is key to helping our profession build trust and credibility, and help us stay at the fore of business development and change.”

At the recent 2018 Bond Solon Expert Witness Conference, the results of the Annual Expert Witness Survey in Collaboration with The Times were published. The total number of respondents - over a varied range of topics - was 607 and of those surveyed, 81% of the experts are mainly instructed in civil cases.

In answer to some questions posed in the survey –

• 10% of the experts surveyed indicated that they are mainly instructed in family cases and the steep decline in the use of experts in these cases may be attributed to the introduction of the Family Procedure Rules in January 2013.
• On the subject of legal aid cases, the expert witnesses who accept or do not accept legal aid cases were evenly split. Despite the ability of everyone to be able to resolve their legal issues as being vital to a just society, experts are not obliged to accept legal aid cases. There have been significant cuts to fees for legal aid work over the past few years.
• 80% of the experts surveyed do not think that many parts of their expert witness work could be done using Artificial Intelligence (AI) reducing the need for full reports as it exists now. AI-based technological solutions have been developed to assist with the e-disclosure process.

Lord Chief Justice says,

“The ability of computers to analyse vast quantities of material to enable accurate predictions in many areas of human activity is one of the most exciting developments of the age.”

The majority of the experts surveyed do not believe that the increased use of IT in courts will lead to the decline, or the end, of expert witnesses giving evidence.

• 43% of the experts surveyed indicated that they have come across an expert they consider to be a ‘hired gun’. Pressure from instructing parties will be one of the reasons that could lead an expert to be a hired gun. Lord Woolf made it clear in the Civil Procedure Rules 1999 that an expert’s duty is to the court not the side paying. In the last 12 months, 25% of the experts surveyed stated that they have been asked - or felt pressurised by an instructing party - to change their report in a way that damages their impartiality. 75% of the experts surveyed consider that professional bodies should play a more active role in situations where experts are incompetent or behave as a hired gun. Almost 50% of the experts surveyed have come across experts who profess expertise in an area in which they are not qualified or does not warrant expertise.
• 86% of the experts surveyed do not consider that fake news has affected the evidence experts give.
• 60% of the experts surveyed have concerns that courts find it hard to distinguish the truth between conflicting opinions. Experts already have to confirm in their reports that they are true and they have to swear under oath in court to tell the truth but difficulties arise when two experts have differing opinions.
• 65% of experts consider that courts struggle to understand the evidence of experts as it becomes more complex. The explanation needs to be in clear language that a non-expert can understand and act upon. Experts should make sure that their reports are clear and fit for purpose.
• Almost 50% of the experts surveyed indicated that the number of instructions received was at the same level, but 37% said they had increased.
• 80% of the respondents indicated that their rates remain the same as last year, with 32% of the experts stating that have considered stopping their work as an expert witness in the last 12 months. One of the main reasons mentioned by the experts is the expert’s fees.

An employee cited an HR professional's e-mail to raise concerns about his health as evidence of discrimination. A federal district court relied on the e-mail to let the claim move forward.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleged in a lawsuit filed in New Orleans federal district court, that Mid-South Extrusion, Inc. - a plastics manufacturer based in Monroe, La. - violated federal law by firing an employee because of his perceived disability.

Keith Hill - Field Director for the EEOC's New Orleans office - stated:

"It is unlawful for an employer to discharge an employee with a disability because of his medical condition(s) if he is able to perform the essential functions of his job with or without any accommodation."

According to the EEOC's lawsuit, maintenance technician Jeffrey Wyant was discharged after he informed the company of his 50% lung capacity breathing restriction resulting from undiagnosed childhood tuberculosis. He was able to perform the essential functions of his job. The lawsuit also alleges that the company did not conduct any intensive individualized assessment of Mr Wyant - as required by law - to determine if his condition affected his ability to perform the essential functions of the position before discharging him.  

The EEOC sought a permanent injunction prohibiting the company from engaging in employment discrimination, as well as back pay, compensatory damages, pecuniary losses and punitive damages for Mr Wyant.

In September 2014, Mr Wyant was hired as a maintenance technician by Mid South and after accepting the job offer, he completed a post-offer medical history questionnaire. He divulged that he had a previous shoulder injury that limited his range of motion and overhead lifting ability but did not mention any other impairments or conditions.

Mr Wyant completed his 90-day probationary period and received a pay increase. However, soon after, his supervisor noticed performance issues and had concerns about his ability to safely work in the plant. Complaints were also received that he smelled strongly of alcohol. In addition to this, it was alleged that he delegated work to untrained employees and for these incidents he received verbal warnings.

In June 2015, Mr Wyatt began having breathing problems and was diagnosed as having reduced breathing capacity - due to breathing asbestos at a prior job - and undiagnosed tuberculosis as a child or young man, now dormant. It was decided that he needed a heart catheter and the procedure was arranged for Aug. 18, 2015.

Prior to this, he had a meeting with an HR manager and as a result of that meeting on Aug. 13, 2015, the HR manager e-mailed Mr Wyant’s supervisor writing that Mr Wyant "stated that his doctor says he doesn't need to be working in this environment with all the health problems he has" and he "should get out on disability." The HR manager went on to say that this "raised a red flag" for her and added that Mr Wyant’s issues originated from a previous job. She then wrote that this "really bothers" her.

Mr Wyant had the heart catheterization on Aug 18, 2015 and returned to work 3 days later but mid Sep 2015 he suffered a breathing difficulty, which he claimed cleared 10 minutes after the use of his inhaler.

He was scheduled to receive his annual review, at which he would have received a raise, 10 more sick days per year and 40 hours of paid vacation per year - but in an e-mail dated Sept. 21, 2015, his supervisor told the HR manager that Mr Wyant was being fired because he “was not qualified to be a maintenance technician.” Mr Wyant claimed that his supervisor told him that management wanted him gone.

A charge was filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Mr Wyant, alleging that he was fired in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The EEOC agreed and issued a letter of determination in favor of Mr Wyant and later brought a federal lawsuit. Mid South filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied.

Michelle Butler - Senior Trial Attorney for the New Orleans Field Office - said:

"Mr. Wyant was performing his duties without any restrictions, but once he informed the employer of his medical issues, he was discharged based on an unsubstantiated determination that he was not able to perform his duties. This is unlawful as well as unjust, and the EEOC is here to fight such discrimination."

A new research report named ‘It’s Time to Change’, from Punter Southall Aspire - a major investment and savings business - offers UK companies fresh look into how HR, pensions and benefits professionals can change their pensions communications.

Employee communication is an essential part of business and HR's role and valuable internal communication develops confidence within organisations, showing an important influence on employee productivity. However, research by CIPD implies that many employees feel they receive limited or very little information.

In compiling the report, Punter Southall surveyed over 2000 employees aged between16 and 65+, from across the UK. From that survey, they were able to pinpoint four major issues affecting pension savings.

• The research found that current finances are of more concern than looking to the future - the reason for this being that many have competing financial pressures - a loan or credit card debt. It was found that 30% regularly use an overdraft facility and 45% financially support dependants. Eighty eight per cent stated that they would prefer to have £400 now as opposed to £800 in the future and would be more likely to react to communications reflecting that.
• People are also failing to think about their future retirement. Nearly half say their biggest worry for the future is not having enough money in retirement, but almost a third confessed that retirement is not part of their current financial planning and 66% said they are unaware if their savings will prove sufficient for retirement. Seventy eight per cent of people are budgeting monthly and only 28% claim to stick to their budgets.
• The survey found that nearly one in five respondents aged 16 to 24 did not know if they have a pension and 30% did not think that a pension is important. Thirty two per cent surveyed were not aware of their contribution rate, stating that it was the amount set by their employer.
• A major discovery of the report is that employers need to do more to guide and support their workforce. It was found that 82% of those surveyed want their employers to steer them in a positive direction about pensions and 72% would welcome education in planning for the future - 68% want their employer to remind them to review their pension and take action, if necessary.

The research also found that only 38% of respondents stated that they would respond to scare tactics in pension communications but 76% would react to exciting messages. This drew attention to the need for companies to use positive and relevant messaging and emphasise the benefits of saving more. The research also showed that the people’s attention was drawn to powerful imagery, humour, moving words and colour in communications.

 Johanna Nelson - Associate Director of Punter Southall Aspire - stated:

“From a communications perspective, employers can tackle these issues and increase pension awareness with a constant ‘savings drumbeat’ – using regular positive messages that encourage better savings behaviour. People are more concerned with now rather than then, so companies can tap into this by providing financial education on issues that concern them such as debt management or budgeting. The positive benefits of pensions and auto-enrolment can be introduced as part of this conversation.”

She added:

“There is a real need for employers to improve their pension communications and this means getting proactive and stop relying on the material produced by pension providers. Arguably employers have a duty of care to help ensure employees have a positive retirement and are in a strong position to make this happen. Employees want financial education and guidance on current and future financial issues and by promoting positive communications and financial education they can encourage a savings culture."

According to a survey commissioned by Business in the Community - in partnership with Mercer - employees have been found to be struggling with work demands, insecurities and financial insecurity. This has contributed to poor mental health across the nation with employers being warned that work-related stress has now become an epidemic.

Over 4,000 people were surveyed - the results showing that two thirds of respondents said that their mental health and wellbeing is being affected by job security, the state of the economy and the cost of living.

New figures from the Health and Safety Executive have revealed that in 2017/2018 a total of 15.4 million working days were lost through the effects of work-related stress, depression or anxiety - affecting 595,000 workers. This was a huge increase on the previous year.

Partner/Workplace Health Consulting Leader for Mercer - Dr Wolfgang Seidl - said:

“The prevalence of mental health issues has now reached a crisis point. Half-hearted attempts to help those affected are no longer enough. Instead, employers need to urgently identify and collectively address the root causes of the problem.”

He added:

“Instead of enabling people to thrive at work – with reasonable demands being placed on them, control over their workload and supportive management in place – unhealthy working conditions are being allowed to fester. As this continues, disjointed wellbeing initiatives, such as standalone mindfulness seminars or one-off wellbeing days, will not even begin to address the current epidemic.” 

As a result of other research previously carried out by the CIPD, employers were being urged to ensure that line management were equipped to recognise signs of stress and mental ill-health, as they often represented the first port of call for struggling staff. The findings of the CIPD were supported by a study from the Mental Health Foundation, which showed that less than a sixth of staff felt comfortable talking to their line manager about their stress levels.

Rachel Suff - Senior Employment Relations Adviser at the CIPD - said:

“The HSE’s findings chime not just with recent CIPD research but also countless others out there. It’s of particular concern that the CIPD research also found that just 58 per cent of organisations carried out stress risk assessments, despite it being a statutory requirement. Stress risk assessments are hugely important preventative steps which organisations should be taking. The HSE provides several valuable tools to support employers with this.”

Business in the Community is asking companies to do more to encourage conversations between staff and their line managers about all aspects of wellbeing - including financial. They state that other staff, line managers and H.R. should suggest that free help and guidance be sought from organisations such as the Money Advice Service (for general money issues) and the Pensions Advisory Service for advice on specific pension issues.

Louise Aston - Wellbeing Director at Business in the Community - said:

“There is a two-way causal relationship between financial wellbeing and mental health, but very few employers support employees experiencing financial difficulties. Employers have a role in educating employees in financial literacy and signposting to appropriate sources of professional support. There is huge financial pressure on employees, with stagnant wages and living costs which continue to rise, so employers have an important role in educating employees in financial literacy and signposting them to appropriate sources of professional support.”

TUC general secretary - Frances O’Grady - said:

“Work-related stress is a growing epidemic. It’s time employers and the government took it more seriously. Warm words are not going to fix this problem. Managers need to do far more to reduce the causes of stress and support employees struggling to cope.”  

According to Netquote - an insurance lead provider for insurance agents - who commissioned a survey of 800 professionals in charge of hiring, there are quite a few similar issues that take the attention of the hirers and assure that the applicants will get noticed - or otherwise.

The respondents to the survey stated that their opinion of the applicant began when they received the resume which, if it was accompanied by a photograph, 42% stated was a poor start. Following that, 36% of the hiring managers do not like a nontraditional resume - whilst 35% do. Twenty nine per cent had no preference at all. Three pages of resume were considered to be in excess by 51% of the respondents and just under 25% thought that two pages was too long.

In the actual interview, 32% of managers selected the ability to communicate well with a team as being essential; 30% of hiring managers said time management was important in potential applicants; 21% stated they like to hear about honesty in their candidates and 20% of managers opted for determination.

Rita Murphy of Netquote - stated:

“Compared to some other strengths problem solving can feel like a more concrete skill that yields immediate benefits.                                                               Communication encompasses not only speaking skills, but also your ability to lead, critique, and ask for help. Being adept in various communication methods also shows emotional intelligence.                                                                        

Time management is more than just completing tasks on time. An employer cares about how you spend the time leading up to a deadline as well.”

She added:

“Hiring managers want to know that you will be trustworthy in your position. It can be difficult to maintain a workplace that fosters integrity, especially in heavily competitive industries. If the person is going to be in a management role, it is even more important to have demonstrable honest skills.”

The top questions that interviewers put the most store by, were:

• Sixty-nine per cent asked how the applicant managed a conflict
• Sixty-eight per cent asked how they learnt from a mistake
• Sixty-five per cent wished to know when the applicant left their previous employment
• Sixty-four per cent asked about their biggest strength
• Fifty-six per cent asked them what type of learner they were

However, it would appear that when making their selection, the view of every H.R. professional is dissimilar.

During a survey commissioned by Hawk Incentives - a leader in corporate benefit and reward solutions - together with Sapio Research, it was found that HR professionals in large UK organisations tend to overvalue the satisfaction felt by employees with regard to rewards and benefits received.

The survey was conducted on 103 HR professionals and 500 employees to compare perceptions between HR departments and the general workforce.

It was found that just over half of employees - 52% - stated that they are satisfied with the benefits offered by their company, but at the same time 77% of the average HR professional asserted that their workforce was noticeably happier with its benefits package. When asked to rank on a ‘happiness scale’ they maintained that the ranking was 7 or above on a scale from 1 to 10.

The extensive report - ‘Pulling the benefits lever, closing the gap between HR expectations and employee satisfaction’ - revealed the challenges that HR departments confront in making certain that the benefits and incentives that they offer are appropriate to a varied workforce.

Almost half of employees surveyed agreed with the statement that their organisation does not appreciate the real needs and wishes of its employees, whilst 62% of employees said their employers’ rewards and incentives schemes are not applicable to them. Fifty nine per cent of employees stated that their company did not regularly surprise them with new incentives and benefits programmes, as had been claimed.

When the influence of specific benefits on employee acquisition was researched, 69% of HR professionals said they still felt that classic benefits such as private healthcare would be an attraction to potential workers, but only 49% of employees stated that it would be a strong enough reason to influence their decision to work for a company. However, 52% of employees and 57% of HR leaders stated that prepaid shopping cards have a strong impact - which validates the finding that 77% of employees of all ages and grades wanted benefits that assist in cutting the cost of living.

Heather Rogers - Senior Sales and Marketing Director at Hawk Incentives - said:

“What this research shows is that HR leaders’ are now actively deploying their rewards and incentives programme to help them achieve their business goals. But simply offering a range of rewards is not enough – we know that the real results come from fine tuning your packages to reflect the current needs and wishes of your people, as they progress in their careers and personal lives.”

A recent survey of 2,000 full-time employees by West Monroe Partners, a business and technology consulting firm - found that the majority of employees are loyal to their current employers, provided that the conditions are right.

The survey established that 82 percent of employees have a high sense of loyalty to their current employers, but 45 percent of employees who have been with their companies for less than a year have actually applied for new jobs after experiencing a bad day at the office. Also, 59 percent said they would leave their present employment if they received a more appealing offer from a new company - even if they were happy with their current company.

West Monroe Partners commented that “………in a time when U.S. job openings are at a record 7.1 million, employees have the pick of the litter when it comes to employment options. Overall, employees want to stay with their current companies. But in a tight labor market, there will always be other options for those who feel stuck or idle in their current jobs. If you don't provide your employees the professional opportunities they want they can, and will, find it elsewhere."

Mike Hughes - Managing Director at West Monroe Partners - said:

"Today's definition of loyalty isn't what it once was. Some define loyalty as being focused and giving their best efforts during their time with an organization. Others consider themselves loyal after they hit their one- or two-year anniversary with a firm. In our survey, nearly 90 percent had been with their employer over a year, so that may be enough for them to say 'yes, I'm loyal.' "

Aon, a London-based global professional services firm, conducted a survey which showed that 4 out of 10 workers are passively looking for jobs. They are not actively searching, but would consider another job opportunity.

Ken Oehler - Aon's Global Culture and Engagement Practice Leader - said:

"Most would like to stay with their company. But they are open to see what else is out there."  He added:

"The West Monroe Partners findings indicate that the compact between employer and employee is fragile and that loyalty has its limits. There are many points of vulnerability where an employer could frustrate and disengage an employee and where a competitor could offer something better. Higher pay can certainly lure employees away, but even if pay is in the right place, lack of strategic direction from leaders, frustration with work processes or technology, or lack of development could create the opening for another employer to steal top talent."

In general, employees were found to have high ambitions to stay with their current employers for the long term. The research showed that half of the respondents to the survey plan on staying at their current employer for another five years or more. In addition, more than a quarter said they if they received a new offer they would require a 20 percent or higher pay increase to justify the move.

However, a lack of professional growth opportunity was shown to be the employees' main reason for leaving their company - according to the West Monroe survey - with 46 percent of respondents saying that they left their previous company because they did not witness any opportunity to move up.

At the 2018 Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association (PLSA) conference in Liverpool it was suggested that staff were leaving their defined contribution pension schemes because employers had not explained them properly.

A study conducted by research consultancy Ignition House has shown that 42 per cent of people did not know how much was in their defined contribution scheme, and 26 per cent did not know how much they were paying in.

Director of Ignition House and co-author of the research - Janette Weir - stated that there appeared to be a lack of understanding about details of the employer’s pension schemes.  She said:

“It became clear to us that workers who opted out were making decisions very quickly – with very little input from their employer. There was no evidence that any employer was encouraging them to join. There was very little interaction, and it was often just a leaflet or a booklet given to them.”

Evidence was found that implied that pension members in the UK are not engaged with their annual statements and - even when they are engaged - do not fully understand the contents.

Janette Weir added:

“The annual statement is currently a missed opportunity for companies to communicate properly with their members. Worse than that, members taking part in the research told us that their statement is actually contributing to their confusion, making them feel stupid and leading to apathy.”

The TUC’s policy officer for pensions - Tim Sharp - said that it was a matter of concern to him as to who was explaining pensions to employees.  He stated:

“People get pension statements, but many employers typically outsource their pensions to another provider so it’s not their responsibility to talk about it. But the provider also says it’s not their responsibility to talk about it.” 

Respondents in the research felt that their pensions are important as they recognised that it is likely to form a main source of income for them in the future.

One female aged under 35 years had received her last statement - but did not read it.  She reported:

“It is something that I think about more now I am 27 and in the process of buying my first home – before that I didn’t understand any of it and I would have thought pensions are only for old people. A pension is important to me if I ever want to retire.”

A male respondent, aged over 35 years stated that he had read his last statement and understood it well.  He said:

“Although I still have a while to go yet, I try to keep an eye on my workplace and private pensions, because they will be what I will have to live on when I do retire.”

The Simpler Annual Statement - developed by Ruston Smith - which was launched recently will try to provide simple and personalised information on an employee’s retirement savings. 

Ruston Smith - co-chair of the Department for Work and Pensions’ 2017 Automatic Enrolment Review Advisory Board and chair of the Tesco Pension Fund, alongside experts with the pension industry – said:

“We have a responsibility and the ability to help our members achieve the best outcome they can in retirement. By working collaboratively together and making statements and other communications we send them simpler; more readable and consistent across the industry are important steps in our journey to engage with them.”

It has been established that managers often fail to make HR aware of employees' FMLA leave requests – leaving it open to intermittent leave misuse.

Managers need to know - when employees request time off because of a health condition or to care for a family member’s health problem - whether that leave could qualify under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Stephanie Dodge Gournis, an attorney with Drinker Biddle in Chicago, has commented that managers should be trained to notify HR when they become aware that an employee is requesting time off for a medical condition. The employees requesting the leave are not required to specifically say that they need FMLA leave – it is the responsibility of the employer to identify where leave requests could qualify as job-protected FMLA leave. If it is suspected, HR should be notified immediately.

Managers should know that employees with serious health conditions may qualify for FMLA leave. The 1993 law allows for qualified employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave each year for the birth or adoption of a child; to care for their own serious health condition, or to care for an immediate family member who has a serious condition. The FMLA has defined a serious health condition as an illness requiring inpatient care or continuing treatment. This could include three consecutive calendar days of inability to work or perform other regular daily activities; two or more visits to a medical provider within 30 days or one visit with a schedule of ongoing treatment.

However, employees must not only have a serious health condition - but also must have worked for 1,250 hours for the previous 12 months for an employer with 50 or more employees within a 75-mile radius of the worksite.

Camille Toney, an attorney with Greensfelder Hemker & Gale in St. Louis, stated that HR should be notified by management if any employee is absent for three consecutive days in order that they can provide the employee with the required notices in a timely manner.  She added that waiting for the three days of absence to have occurred "may result in employees taking more leave than they are entitled to and also creates a risk that an employee may inadvertently be disciplined under the company's attendance policy on account of FMLA-qualifying days of absence."

A recommendation that employers should introduce a written policy stating that any employee who wants FMLA leave should contact HR has been suggested by Joan Casciari, an attorney with Seyfarth Shaw in Chicago – in order that employers may avoid liability if the manager fails to realize that an employee has asked for FMLA leave.

Medical certifications should be sent to HR within 15 calendar days of receiving the form or as soon as is reasonable given the circumstances and managers should be aware of this.

Stephanie Dodge Gournis stated:

"Managers should be made to understand that FMLA medical certification forms provide employers the best weapon for preventing potential employee abuse of intermittent FMLA leave, as the medical certification forms provide the employer with important information regarding the expected frequency and duration of intermittent leave."

A report by Business Linked Teams - Grow Your Own Leader - has found that 45 per cent of one hundred senior UK HR professionals felt that the responsibility of identifying and developing future leaders should fall to line managers. A similar percentage were of the same opinion regarding making sure existing leaders are continuously developed. 

However, more than two thirds found there was a requirement to cultivate the future leaders in their business.  Eighty nine per cent believed succession planning was their organisation’s main concern, 51 per cent believed that face to face workshops were key elements to a leadership development programme and 37 per cent of those surveyed recognised that a structured, individual personal development plan was very important.

The report went on to point out that it is not only vital that HR leaders get the development plan under control in HQ, but also in each different region where the leadership development programme is being carried out. It is important to ensure that the programme is tailored to each different region – allowing for the various local and cultural factors.  Only 16 percent of HR decision makers admitted to having a global strategy in place with localised leadership training programmes.

Samantha Caine - Managing Director at Business Linked Teams – stated:

“It’s clear that HR leaders are placing too much expectation on line managers without providing the right levels of support. As a result, line managers are struggling to overcome the challenges identified on top of their existing day to day challenges.”

She added:

“As organisations face the challenges of a globalised marketplace, they require experienced leadership that knows the business inside out and can seamlessly succeed current leadership while demonstrating the skills and behaviours required to bolster the organisation in each specific market.” 

The report ended by stating:

“HR professionals must ensure that line managers are fully on-board and not simply delegate the task of identifying leaders and expecting them to do the rest.”

Dan Lucy - Principal Research Fellow at the Institute for Employment Studies -commented:

 “Unfortunately, it’s still the case that too many individuals attain leadership positions as a consequence of technical competence without any real interest or capability in managing or developing people. HR has a huge and important role to play here in ensuring that the right people are put in leadership positions, and their capabilities developed.”

According to Hays UK and Ireland in its What Workers Want Report 2018, over 70 per cent of job applicants would abandon their online application for work if it took more than 15 minutes to complete.  Alternatively, 49 per cent would instantly show interest in applying if the procedure was simple.

Simon Winfield - Managing Director of Hays UK and Ireland - said:

“Today’s candidates are more digitally fluent than ever before. They have become accustomed to doing everything online; from communicating with friends and catching up on news to managing their finances and booking their holidays.  As a result they have come to expect a very slick and intuitive user experience regardless of service or function. Not unreasonably, they expect the same ease of use when applying for a new role." 

He added:

“Too many employers have been very slow to recognise the applicant’s user experience as a key tenet of their recruitment strategy, and by extension the potential it has to paint either a very positive or negative first impression of the company. In neglecting to invest in the applicant’s user experience many employers may be undermining their ability to compete for the best talent.”

The survey - in which 14,600 employers and employees took part - showed that the majority of employers are failing to make online application processes part of their talent attraction strategies, despite 41 per cent of employers being aware that they offer a bad online experience.  Fifty per cent of applicants gave poor ratings for their experience when applying online using the employer’s website, with 72 per cent of those citing a lengthy process as the chief reason.

However, despite applicants placing importance on a simple online process, the report found that they still valued personal communication - with over 69 per cent of applicants saying that it is essential that they should be in contact with a person who can provide information on the progress of their individual application.   

Deborah O'Sullivan - Operations Director at recruitment experts Ten2Two - remarked that it was a mistake for employers to ignore their online application’s user functionality. 

She said:

“It creates an overall impression of a brand and a first impression of what it might be like to work for that business. If the user experience and recruitment process is unresponsive, prolonged or difficult, it doesn’t tell a great story and could lose great talent from the outset.”

The Managing Director of an online recruitment and job site emphasised that, whilst user functionality is important, employers also need to take care not to lose the human touch altogether when using online application processes. For instance, responses need to be sent, even if these are automated and all candidates should be kept up to date, even if their application hasn’t been successful.

Previous research - a survey published by Indeed in collaboration with Censuswide - revealed that online reputations were increasingly becoming necessary for attracting top talent.  Seventy per cent of jobseekers would not apply for a position until they had carried out research into the potential employer’s online reputation - and 57 per cent reported that they would distrust and not apply to a company with no digital identity.

As a result of analysis - published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) - regarding teenagers misjudging their future salaries, HR departments have been advised to team up with schools to inform their scholars about the business world.

The research showed that most teenagers hoping to attend university were overestimating their prospective salary by about £11,000 - expecting to be earning £35,000 by their 30th birthday when, in fact, data published by the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings 2017 showed that the average wage for a 30-year-old was £23,700. 

In addition, teenagers who did not aspire to attend university also overestimated their future earning but not to the same extent, as they cited £25,000.

Some young people were even more ambitious in their expectations for future earning potential.   Five per cent thought that they could earn £80,000 or more at the age of 30 but in reality, only 2 per cent earned £80,000.

Senior reward and payment adviser at the CIPD - Charles Cotton - said that the findings highlighted:

“....the importance of the HR profession working with schools and universities to talk about what the world of work looks like and involves and what pay expectations they can get”.  He added:

“It’s a case of working out, if you want to earn that amount of money, the careers you’ll need to go into.”  

The ONS found, however, that young people were more interested in job satisfaction and security rather than earning capacity. Seventy one per cent of those aged 16 to 21years - surveyed in 2015 to 2016 - said that having an interesting job was very important; sixty per cent felt job security was most important, whilst just 25 per cent thought a high income was very important. 

But the ONS analysis also revealed that many young people failed to land their dream jobs. The top five types of employment designated as dream jobs by teenagers previously surveyed were in media; teaching and education; health professionals; public services - such as police or fire fighters - and nursing and midwifery.  Of these, only teaching ranked in the top five in which 22 to 29-year-olds found employment during 2017.

Separate research by the ONS revealed that 12 per cent of young people without a degree were working in jobs usually assigned to graduates. Fifty four per cent of graduates held a comparable job, with HR roles being acknowledged as one of the most common graduate jobs being allocated to non-graduates - and attracting an average salary of £26,319.

A survey, conducted by Avado Learning in collaboration with Arch Apprentices, has found that 15% of 16 to 25 year olds were not confident in their management capabilities. Sixteen per cent stated that they had asked their employer for more training - which they had not received. Various reasons were given for the lack of training, with 45% saying that cost had been cited; 42% mentioned lack of time and 19% stated that they would have been required to pay for their own training.

The survey has also highlighted a confidence gap between male and female managers in the UK workplace. Almost half of the men polled said that they were very confident in their management skills, compared to only 30% of women polled - and a fifth of female managers even admitted they would rather be managed by a man.

The findings showed that age also played a part in the way management was perceived - with 68% of 20-24 years-olds saying they felt their age was a hindrance to their colleague's confidence in them as a manager. Nearly half of UK managers felt their gender or age had diminished their colleagues' confidence in them.

The Chief People Officer at Avado - Dean Corbett - said he did not believe that dealing with these issues was exclusively the responsibility of HR, but he added that it was commercially essential. He said:

“On a basic human level, no one should be made to feel there is a cap on their potential. It might be suggested by some that a lot of previous attempts have been box-ticking exercises. To address this, businesses need to be clearer and more direct about action.”

Amy Crawford - Managing Director at AVADO - stated:

"It is disappointing to see the negative impact gender and age has on confidence in management capabilities but encouraging to see the powerful impact that being qualified can have on employees."

Unison Assistant General Secretary, Christina McAnea, recommended that businesses should run regular courses to tackle any sexist or ageist beliefs - adding:

"Employers must make sure their managers have the best possible support, so that no one is ever made to feel they're not up to the job.”

The Minister for Women, Victoria Atkins, has announced funding grants through the £1.5m Returners Fund - which was set up with the intention of helping people get back into work after having taken career breaks. Five organisations have been granted a total of almost £500,000 to help in this respect.

Reviews have shown that those who take lengthy career breaks – and most are women – find it difficult to make progress on their return to work and this is one cause of the gender pay gap.

The five recipients of the grant will sustain those returning into the workplace through refresher training and updating of their skills and will also work directly with 79 employers from a range businesses including communications; technology; law; finance; retail and advertising/marketing.

Victoria Atkins said:

“For too long, taking time out of work to care for others has cut short careers and brilliant, talented women are unable to re-enter industries which will not support them to return. This is a huge loss, not only to those individuals, but to our economy and businesses all over the country.”   She added:

“We are investing in returners to work – giving them the opportunity to refresh and grow their skills and encouraging employers to change their outdated recruitment processes. By taking action on this issue we can grow the economy and achieve true equality in our workplaces.”

The organisations that have been granted money are:

• £95,000 for national charity, Changing Lives
• £110,000 for social consultancy, Women Returners
• £187,000 for chamber of commerce, St Helens Chamber
• £65,000 for creative industries organisation, Creative Equals
• £32,000 for Back2businessship, which is being delivered by f1 Recruitment.

One of the organisations to receive funding – Changing Lives – is a national charity who, with their grant, has said that they will assist 80 persons returning to work in the North East.  Their CEO, Stephen Bell said:

“We are delighted to have been successful in securing funding from the Returner’s Fund. Here at Changing Lives we are dedicated to supporting those with multiple and complex needs to overcome the barriers they face. This fund will allow us to develop our Employment Services to empower women to move back into employment and fulfill their potential.”

The government guaranteed £1.5 million to get people with caring responsibilities back into work and a further £1,010,950 funding will be awarded this autumn.  This support will assist carers from across the country to return to work; boost the economy and help to tackle the gender pay gap.

The November 2017 budget announcement of a £5m pledge to support persons returning to work followed recommendations made by the Women and Work All Parliamentary Group - which called on large businesses to provide paid return-to-work programmes for women.

Since last April, businesses with 250 or more employees have been required to publish details of their gender pay gap on an annual basis.

According to a recent report from the TUC - “A future that works for working people” - UK employers are being asked to consider changing to a four-day week, but experts stress that greater flexibility is more important than focusing on the days worked.

For some time, a shorter working week - bringing more control over everyone’s time - has been promised as a result of the progress made in technology.  However, it has been found that new technology is actually likely to increase the working life as workers are required to be constantly available for work.

In their survey, the TUC found that over 1.4 million people are now working on 7 days of the week and 3.3 million people work more than 45 hours a week.  It also found that stress and long hours are workers’ biggest concerns after pay and they struggle to get the hours they need to fit in with family life.

The TUC’s report makes a case for technological advances reducing workload and boosting productivity without the necessity to forgo pay. The survey - consisting of 2,145 UK workers - found that 81 per cent wanted to reduce their future working time and 45 per cent chose a four-day working week. 

TUC General Secretary, Frances O’Grady stated:

“Working people deserve their fair share – and that means using the gains from new tech to raise pay and allow more time with their families. If productivity gains from new technology are even half as good as promised, then the country can afford to make working lives better.”

The report showed that 74 per cent of workers want technology to give them more control over their working lives, but 51 per cent expected that the benefits of new technology would be kept by management - whilst a third considered that benefits would be equally shared between employers, shareholders and employees. 

CIPD Diversity and Inclusion Adviser, Claire McCartney commented:

“Some people might be working quite long hours, which works for them and their employer. If people have greater flexibility to choose what works for them, they are able to control their work-life balance.” 

Jobs Expert at totaljobs, Lynn Cahillane advised:

“In the shorter term, there are simple ways companies can improve productivity without taking Friday off. This could be as simple as shortening meetings, implementing email blackout periods and encouraging full-hour lunch breaks away from desks.” 

Matthew Buskell, Area Vice President for EMEA at corporate learning leader Skillsoft, was of the opinion that employees should be trained in the new skills essential to overcome the paradox of automation.  He stated:

“As we become more reliant on technology, the less inclined we are to take control of exceptional cases when technology fails. Keeping human skills sufficiently fresh to know when and how to intervene will become increasingly critical."

A recent survey by Willis Towers Watson showed that 54 per cent of organisations believe that HR must take a lead on IT security in the workplace.

The survey - How Boards Can Lead the Cyber Resilient Organisation - consisted of respondents from 452 global companies and showed that 66 per cent were of the opinion that HR and security departments held the answer to fighting cyber crime.

Anthony Dagostino - Global Head of Cyber Risk with Willis Towers Watson - said:

“These findings are encouraging because they signal that more organisations are involving their HR function in addressing cyber risk. Organisations need greater collaboration between their chief human resources officers and information security officers to truly assess the organisational cultures driving cyber risk in the first instance.” 

HR professionals - as keepers of data on employees - have an immense responsibility to store personal information safely and to ensure that all staff follows procedures rigorously to reduce the risk of data breaches caused by employee error.  Ascertaining that workers only have access to the data they need to do their job can help to safeguard sensitive information.

Training staff on the latest breaches of security; changes to the Data Protection Bill; the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and phishing scams can encourage good habits and procedures.

Head of Solutions Delivery and IT at the British Standard Institute, Stephen Bowe, stated that businesses should provide training and education to increase awareness of data security challenges among staff. He said:

“Different organisations are at different stages of their digital journey, and as the pace of IT innovation and digital transformation continues to quicken, there are inconsistencies in how prepared organisations are in the event of a cyber-attack or a data loss incident. Data is as important to public services as personnel and physical infrastructures, and everyone has a responsibility to protect it.” 

The survey found that 29 per cent of UK companies had experienced a serious cyber incident in the last year and 18 per cent of these companies believe they will suffer an incident in the next 12 months.

In addition, a report published by the British Standard Institute’s Cybersecurity and Information Resilience centre and GovNewsDirect, stated that 77 per cent of UK public sector organisations had experienced a cyber security breach in the last year and 32 per cent of these breaches were caused by staff error.

Anthony Dagostino remarked:

 “The solution isn’t always more security awareness training. It could be a leadership or incentives and rewards issue, things that fall squarely within the function of the chief HR officer.”

Under plans by the government to double the lower limit for recovering costs in minor injury cases, critics have warned that it could be discouraging to thousands of injured workers wishing to bring cases against their employers. 

What is known as the small claims limit presently stands at £1,000 but the government intends to increase this to £2,000 - which personal injury experts consider could affect as many as 350,000 persons per year.  The change is part of the government’s wider reforms programme for the civil justice claims system.

The Civil Liability Bill - designed to amend the claims process for whiplash injuries - was debated by MPs.  The changes would be brought through via a statutory instrument rather than in the bill itself - and MPs were disapproving of the proposed new limits.    

Richard Burgon - Labour MP for Leeds East - stated:

“We fear a fall in claims similar to 2013’s introduction of employment tribunal fees in personal injury cases, with genuine victims priced out of justice and deterred from pursuing a claim for an injury that was not their fault.”

Under the changes, employees who suffer injuries worth less than £2,000 will not be able to recover the cost from the persons they are suing, of any legal advice and according to unions and legal advisors, the probability of them succeeding in their cases will be weaker against employers who instruct lawyers.

However, Associate Director at Croner - Paul Holcroft - warning that the changes could encourage employees to represent themselves rather than hire a lawyer. He stated:

“This could result in an upsurge of claims against employers where individuals do not have specific legal advice at the outset to determine whether a claim is worth pursuing or not.  Although the small claims track is viewed as simpler and more informal, an increase in litigants in person is likely to result in proceedings becoming lengthier and more onerous for employers, due to a lesser understanding of the court process. This will, in turn, cause employers to spend more on defending the personal injury claim.”

The Ministry of Justice gives the reason for the reform - which is due to come into force on April 2020 - as the fact that the £1,000 limit was set in the 1990s and needs to increase to keep pace with inflation.

A spokesperson from the Ministry of Justice said:

“Compensation in personal injury cases should be fair and proportionate, and making a claim should be as simple as possible. That is why we are making the system fairer for all – not least the taxpayer – and increasing the support available for claimants. The claims limit was last set in 1991, and our proposed increase for personal injury cases is in line with inflation.”

The Shadow Justice Minister – Gloria de Piero – stated:

“These changes mean more workers will be faced with a choice - either pay for legal help out of your own compensation, continue unrepresented and face large insurers who will continue to be able to afford lawyers or simply drop the claim.  Disgracefully, the government won’t even be bringing these changes to the floor of the House of Commons where they would be fully scrutinised and debated by MPs. Instead, they’ll be using a statutory instrument; a legislative technique that allows ministers to alter existing regulations without having to have a full debate in the Commons.  The Tories are trying to avoid the full scrutiny these changes desperately need.”

The Civil Liability Bill has now passed to committee stage but the implementation of the changes has been delayed whilst the courts service develops an online claims system.

On August 28th, U.S. Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta announced the opening of the Office of Compliance Initiatives (OCI) - a cross-agency effort to complement the Department of Labor’s enforcement activities.  This was in collaboration with federal employment agencies and the Department of Labor (DOL). In addition, several new ‘opinion’ letters that provide guidance to employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act were issued.

The object of the OCI is - amongst other matters - to provide both employers and employees with access to high quality and up-to-date information about their rights and obligations under federal labor laws and regulations; to assist enforcement agencies in developing new strategies to use data for more impactful compliance and enforcement strategies and to encourage a culture that promotes compliance assistance within the Department of Labor.

Two websites - worker.gov and employer.gov - were immediately instigated by the Office of Compliance Initiatives to provide information about worker’s rights and concerns in the workplace.

Worker.gov covers information about wages payment; rights to protected leave; retirement security and other benefits, together with information concerning rights protected by other agencies.  It is focused on helping employees.

Employer.gov provides employers with information about their responsibilities and includes a section specifically intended for small business owners.

The Department of Labor, in a release stated:

“OCI will promote greater understanding of federal labor laws and regulations, allowing job creators to prevent violations and protect Americans’ wages, workplace safety and health, retirement security, and other rights and benefits. As part of its work, OCI will work with the enforcement agencies to refine their metrics to ensure the efficacy of DOL’s compliance assistance activities.”

The creation of the Office of Compliance Initiatives has been criticized by some who consider it reflects the Department of Labor’s growing emphasis on compliance rather than aggressive agency enforcement. However, Secretary of Labor, Alexander Acosta remarked during his announcement of the Office of Compliance Initiatives:

“……..vigorous enforcement and compliance assistance go hand in hand.”

In addition to providing information through the websites and other efforts, the Office of Compliance Initiatives plans to assist enforcement agencies in the development of new strategies - to use data for effective compliance and enforcement strategies.

There have been some concerns lest the increase in contributions to auto-enrolled pensions schemes cause a mass departure by employees.  However, experts have stated that they believe it is unlikely that this will happen.

Employees appear to have accepted the increase in minimum contributions - which took place in April - from 2 per cent to 5 per cent (with the employer’s contribution rising from 1 per cent to 2 per cent).

According to research by pensions and investment firm Aegon, it was found that UK workers have welcomed auto-enrolment - to the extent that 25 per cent said that being auto-enrolled was the nudge they needed to save for retirement.

In addition, it showed that the average worker is willing to pay a 7 per cent contribution with nearly one in six of those in their 20’s willing to pay between 11 per cent and 15 per cent of their salary towards saving for their pension.                                                                                    

Head of Pensions at Aegon – Kate Smith – said:

“There was some concern that increasing auto-enrolment contributions for employees would result in some people stopping their contributions. However, our research is a strong endorsement that not only will people take the increases in their stride, they’re realistic to appreciate that a comfortable retirement requires saving at higher rates and are prepared to pay more.”

She said that the company’s books reveal that few people have opted out of their workplace schemes and that the opt-out rates for new members had “slightly gone up, but it was marginal”.

She added:

“We did a lot of media around April when the pension’s contributions increased. We emphasised that staying in meant that not only would you be saving more, but Aegon would be contributing more as well. I understand for a lot of people that saving can be an affordability issue, but we haven’t seen a lot of changes in our numbers. We are concerned about what will happen next April when rates go up again.” 

Chris Curry - Director at The Pensions Institute - believes that the principle of opting out of a system, rather than joining in, seems to play an important part in the number of people remaining in their workplace pensions.

He stated:

“Inertia still seems to be playing an important role, almost certainly helped by the fact that other changes, such as changes in income tax and national insurance, will have partially offset increased pensions contributions. We shouldn’t be complacent – there is little data to go on at the moment, and people may take a little time to respond to the change.”

Aegon’s survey consisted of 14,400 employees and 1,600 retired people in 15 countries.  Globally, it found that workers in the UK were the second most likely to give – as their reasons for saving for retirement – employment-related reasons. 

Kate Smith stated:

“Saving in a pension through your employer has become a natural part of working life in the UK today, with people embracing saving in this way. There’s also a growing appreciation that the level of retirement income is dependent on the contributions individuals and their employer make throughout their career, leading to a desire to pay more.”

Ros Altmann - former Minister of State for Work and Pensions - said it was encouraging to see such low opt-out rates after the increase in contributions.

She added:

“It is now up to pension providers to ensure workers have a positive experience of pensions, and I encourage employers to explain the benefits and extra money which they are providing for their staff.”

Data obtained under a Freedom of Information request has shown that 3,365 employment tribunals were postponed within 48 hours of the scheduled hearing, between 1 August 2017 and 31 March 2018.  Cases that were adjourned on the actual day of the hearing have not been included in these figures. 

A survey of Employment Lawyers Association members - which received 320 responses - revealed that 90% of respondents had experienced delays in tribunals dealing with interim paper applications; 57% had experienced delays in receiving reserved judgments and 45% reported postponements of a hearing due to a lack of judicial resources.

These figures suggest that the tribunal system has been under strain since last year when the Supreme Court determined that tribunal fees were unlawful and should be abolished. 

In June, The Ministry of Justice published figures revealing that the number of claims brought by a single person - rather than by a group of people - in the first quarter of 2018, increased to 9,252.  This was up 118% in comparison with the previous year. During this time, the caseload which was outstanding increased by 89%.

A spokesperson from the Ministry of Justice said that the employees bringing the claims had requested postponements in 87% of the cases and added:

“Every effort is made to ensure delays are kept to a minimum.”

Barry Stanton, Head of Employment Law at Boyes Turner, told People Management:

“There have always been postponements; postponements cause stress to the parties (and the lawyers). Claims languish, often for months, before everyone has to refocus their efforts with a renewed hearing date. Those costs – and the need to recall events which are now even older – lead inevitably to dissatisfaction.” 

He continued:

“Sadly, postponements seem to be an inevitable part of the tribunal system. The alternative would be listing cases to be heard, with a guarantee that each case will be heard on the scheduled date. Doing that would lead to significant delays in getting cases to a hearing or significantly increasing tribunal resources, with the inevitable result that tribunals will incur costs without any tangible benefit and sit idle.”

Chair of ELA’s tribunal resources working party and Head of Employment at UK firm Kingsley Napley - Richard Fox - stated that reports had been received of delays of 'many weeks and in some cases, even months’, before tribunals dealt with claims. He added that many employment judges are dealing with the administration themselves – which includes typing up their own orders and directly distributing them to the involved parties and lawyers had been informed that it may take a year before there are appreciably more judges in place.  

He said:

“Our findings are deeply worrying. Tribunals are plainly under intense strain at the moment. Some of these issues are down to a lack of judicial resource; others to the lack of support at an administrative level. What is particularly concerning is that we are still far short of the number of claims being brought before the tribunal fees were introduced in the summer of 2013. So, in all likelihood, the pressures on the system are only going to get worse before they get better.”

 Croner's Associate Director - Paul Holcroft – said:

“The tribunal process can be distressing for all parties and postponements will only add to the distress felt – something which will be even more heightened when the postponement occurs so close to the hearing date.”  

He added:

“Although some postponements can be completely unforeseen – for example, those relating to adverse weather or hearing centre facilities – the lack of judicial resources must be a huge contributory factor and the quicker this problem is fixed, the better.”

In June, the Judicial Appointments Commission finished a recruitment drive for 54 salaried employment tribunal judges and Judge Brian Doyle has forecast that offers for positions will be made in January 2019.

The UK Employer Skills Survey - undertaken by IFF Research for the Department for Education - and involving 87,000 employers, found that 2.5 million UK workers are overqualified for their jobs. This is an increase of 8.7 per cent of the workforce.

It was also found that 35 per cent of employers were employing staff that were not being used to the best of their ability, due to either not being fully trained or for being overqualified for the job they were holding. This is an increase from 2015 when just 30 per cent of businesses said they had employees who were being underutilised and the equivalent of 7.1 per cent of the workforce was identified as being overqualified.

Many graduates are finding themselves working in jobs that would - in previous generations - have been filled by non-graduates and comparisons across Europe have suggested that this is a particular problem for the UK, with 58.8 per cent of graduates working in jobs that could have been filled by non-graduates.

However, 13 per cent of the employers surveyed stated that they had skill gaps in their workforce and 4.4 per cent were found to be lacking the expertise required to fulfill their role.  This was an improvement from 2015 when 5 per cent of the workforce was found to be lacking the appropriate knowledge needed to carry out their work competently.

Duncan Brown, Head of HR consulting at the Institute for Employment Studies – stated:

“Employers need to invest more in training and the right sort of training - and HR functions need to do a better job in evidencing the business case for this and showing that such investments pay off, particularly in SMEs.”

He added:

“We need to continue to improve relationships between employers and education providers, strengthen careers guidance services and do more to encourage lifelong learning.”

The Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices - published in July 2017 -recognised that, going forward, there was a deficiency in jobs which match the UKs talent profile as a key labour market.

The report drew attention to the fact that the proportion of graduates working in low-skilled employment had increased from 5.3 per cent in 2008 to 8.1 per cent in 2016.

However, a report published by the Open University last month found that 91 per cent of all businesses had found it difficult to find skilled staff in the last year - with skills shortages costing companies £6.3bn annually in recruitment fees; inflated salaries; hiring temporary staff and training workers.

According to research carried out by Barnett Waddingham – a UK independent provider of actuarial, administration and consultancy services – final salary pension deficits of the top 350 UK companies has been almost halved from £62bn to £35bn by the end of June. This is the third year in a row that deficit contributions have increased.

Now, the scheme shortfalls account for just 17 percent of total profits, which 18 months ago were showing a shortfall of 70 percent.  The research showed that part of the reduction was due to companies contributing more to their schemes – but Barnett Waddingham also observed that it was related to better performance of investment portfolios.

Nick Griggs - Partner at Barnett Waddingham – advised:

“With the health of the UK and global economy threatened by a lack of progress with Brexit and the threat of a trade war from Trump’s America First assault, there could a major impact on the size of pension deficits and the ability of FTSE 350 companies to pay the contributions needed to clear these. Companies should ensure they are comfortable with the level of investment risk being taken by their DB schemes and that the appropriate controls are in place to manage these risks.”

Recently, the collapse of British Home Stores and Carrillion – who both had large funding gaps in their schemes – highlighted the problems with DB pensions.  Lesley Titcomb, Chief Executive of the Pensions Regulator, wrote to the Work and Pensions Select Committee stating that the average length of recovery for those DB plans which were in deficit, was 7 years. However, 20 per cent of schemes have a recovery plan of 10 years or longer and 5 per cent of schemes have a recovery plan of 16 years or longer.

Steve Webb - Director of policy at Royal London – stated:

“While some firms are in a much stronger place and some schemes are now in surplus, there will be others with a toxic combination of a weak employer covenant and an underfunded scheme.”

He added:

“The overall trend is very much in the right direction but it is too soon to be popping the champagne corks.”

Barnett Waddingham’s Nick Griggs said:

“The majority of companies ended 2017 with their DB scheme in a healthier state than the previous year. While this is positive news, it would not take much to tip the balance the other way. Our analysis suggests that a 0.5 percent fall in bond yields in 2017 would have pushed the aggregate deficit of the FTSE350 DB schemes up to £85bn.”

Currently, the government is considering what steps it could take to make DB pension schemes more secure.  A white paper has been published by the department of work and pensions outlining possible crackdowns on bosses who mismanage final salary schemes and the government is considering whether the Pensions Regulator should be given greater powers. 

An online survey on how companies retain top talent was developed by Robert Half - a large specialized staffing firm - and conducted by a leading independent research firm.  It included responses from more than 5,500 decision makers across a variety of professional fields in the US.  

When asked if they ever extend counteroffers to employees to keep them from leaving for another job, 58% of the respondents replied that they did, whilst 42% stated that they did not.  The respondents included senior managers in finance and accounting; technology; legal departments; advertising and marketing and human resources.

It was found that many employers did not want to upset employee morale or to go through the lengthy hiring process to replace the departing employee and their only option appeared to be to make a counteroffer.  However, the study found that this solution was only temporary as, on average, employees who accept counteroffers only remained with their company for 1.7 years. 

Paul McDonald - Senior Executive Director for Robert Half – stated:

"Counteroffers are typically a knee-jerk reaction to broader staffing issues. While they may seem like a quick fix for employers, the solution is often temporary. When employees accept a counteroffer, they will likely quit soon afterward."

He advised professionals not to accept these offers and added:

"Money doesn't solve everything. If you accept a counteroffer, your employer may question your loyalty to the company. And, more importantly, the root causes of why you were looking to leave in the first place may still exist."

Ladders - a job board specializing in six-figure positions - confirmed that offering money to solve retention problems does not bring the right result, as only 30% of employees questioned for their research stated that money was their reason for leaving.

Of the employees surveyed by Ladders, 94% said they would take their dream job right away; 31% would take a pay cut for their dream job; 67% would change jobs immediately – even if it was not for their ideal job – and 23% would take a position with a higher title in preference to a raise in money.

Paul McDonald suggested that employers conduct stay interviews to get a sense of who is not happy and why, stating that these interviews will establish trust between the managers and employees - which would help identify problem areas in the organization before they become deal breakers.

As a result of a freedom for information request, new data has revealed that significant complaints were received by The Pensions Regulator (TPR) alleging employers had been inducing employees to opt out of pension schemes during the following time periods: 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014; 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015; 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016; 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017; 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018.

Ninety nine cases - which primarily relate to employers inducing employees to opt out of pensions - and a further 15 cases which do relate to inducement, were found.  Twelve cases were found during the period 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016; thirty eight cases between 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 and sixty four cases between1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018 – an increase of 68%.

As it is an offence for employers to attempt to induce an employee who is eligible to be enrolled into a workplace pension to opt out - regardless of whether that inducement is successful or not - this has resulted in the watchdog being called upon to penalise the wrongdoers.

Senior performance and reward adviser at the CIPD - Charles Cotton - said;

“This can have a detrimental impact on what kind of retirement these individuals will enjoy, as well as undercutting those organisations complying with the regulations. Law-abiding firms will want to see those companies deliberately flouting the law pursued by TPR and punished.”

Steve Webb - Director of Policy at Royal London - said that 114 reports was a small amount compared to the total number of employees who had been auto-enrolled and stayed in a scheme but nevertheless, it was a worry.

He stated:

“The very low opt-out rate that we are continuing to see suggests that there is unlikely to be a general problem with employers actively encouraging opt-outs.” 

He then added:

“But it is important not to be complacent and a clear signal needs to be sent that membership of a workplace pension is a valuable employment right and that employers should not be seeking to put pressure on their staff to give up that right.”

A spokesperson from The Pensions Regulator said:

“The number of whistleblowing reports we have received must be taken in the context that more than 1.3m employers have completed their declaration of compliance – almost all of them in the last three years – as automatic enrolment has expanded. Nevertheless, we would encourage any workers who are not being given the pensions they are entitled to or who believe their employers are committing pension offences to contact us and we will investigate...We will take action against employers who fail to comply with it.”

In the meantime, data released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed that 44% of employees felt their employer’s workplace pension scheme was the safest way to save for retirement – but the research also revealed that many were not aware of auto-enrolment. Ninety one per cent of those eligible for auto-enrolment thought they had not yet been enrolled into a scheme when, in fact, they had been.

Recent research has found that HR has the power to improve employee wellbeing - provided it gets line manager support. 

The research - Developmental HRM, employee well-being and performance: The moderating role of developing leadership - was conducted by by IÉSEG School of Management and researched the effect of HR practices on wellbeing and performance.  

The study examines the link between developmental human resource practices and employee task performance and includes both happiness and health related effects - such as exhaustion.

Seven organisations - 403 employees and 53 line managers - were questioned and the conclusion was that manager commitment carried a heavy influence.

The lead researcher, Professor Elise Marescaux of IÉSEG, said:

“Overall, we found that developmental HR practices increase employee wellbeing. When an organisation offers more training and self-development options, employees feel more committed and are less exhausted. But we also find that supervisors play a key role in ensuring the success of HR processes.”

The data obtained by the researchers show that distinct emerging HR practices influence the well‐being and employee performance differently and suggests that the leadership behaviour of line managers has an influence on the way in which HR practices affect employees.

However, Dr Charmi Patel, Professor of International and Strategic HRM and Organisational Behaviour at Henley Business School, said:

“Middle managers are very important, despite not necessarily being involved with HR. Every line manager should have training in people management practice, which people often confuse with back office HR.”  

She added:

 “Rather than saying line managers need to be up skilled in HR work, organisations should be promoting general people management training.” 

Skills policy advisor at the CIPD, Elizabeth Crowley, commented:

“Line managers are critical in ensuring policy is effectively implemented, but it’s also important that employees themselves are aware of the learning and development offers available to them, and are confident in having conversations with their line managers regarding their development needs and progression opportunities.  HR devises learning and development strategy, and line managers should be equipped to implement these opportunities, but enabling employees to have those conversations is equally important.” 

 Adding:

“We don’t invest in line managers in the UK to the extent that other countries do, and many receive no training at all, so it’s important to address that. Much of the time this can be achieved through short, bespoke blended learning opportunities around mentoring, coaching and performance, and having difficult conversations, enabling people to have those conversations and dealing with difficult employees.” 

In the meantime, BSI - the business standards company - has launched a new code of practice for organisations to help tackle a crisis in the mental health and wellbeing of Britain’s workforce.

The code of practice - PAS 3002 - provides recommendations for establishing, promoting, maintaining and reviewing the health and wellbeing of workers within organisations. It reflects on how health and wellbeing should be incorporated into the working environment and how leadership can ensure health and wellbeing related services are available to employees.

The document recommends capitalisation on diversity and inclusion as an organisational strength and proactive support for the physical and psychological health and wellbeing of workers.  In addition, a work culture that offers strong, ethical relationships, a collaborative and communicative management style, and an organisational culture in which learning and development are encouraged should be engaged; jobs designed so that they offer meaningful work and good people management policies and practices should be supported.

Anne Hayes, Head of Governance and Resilience at BSI, said:

“Health and wellbeing should be everyone’s concern within an organization. Increasingly, organizations are being asked to meet their responsibilities in relation to health and wellbeing in order to provide healthy workplaces and to protect people from harm. Enhancing employee wellbeing and engagement is at heart of this code of practice, and PAS 3002 provides guidance for organizations to provide early intervention to help prevent people being absent for health reasons and to use the workplace to promote individual health and wellbeing.”

According to TUC analysis, 2.2 million employees are not getting the minimum paid leave entitlement they are due, with 1.2 million not getting any paid leave at all.

This has been attributed to one in 12 UK workers bearing unrealistic workloads, holiday requests being denied by employers, or employers not keeping up to date with the law. Employees are entitled to a statutory annual minimum of 28 days paid leave.

It was shown that 9.2% of female workers and 7.2% of male workers were affected, resulting in nearly £3 billion worth of paid leave being lost each year.

The TUC stated that HM Revenue and Customs should be given new powers to clamp down on employers who deny staff their statutory entitlement and went on to say that minimum holiday entitlements are vital to reducing overwork, stressing that working excessive hours can severely affect an employee’s health.

TUC general secretary - Frances O'Grady - said:

"We're now in peak holiday season, but while many workers are away enjoying time off with friends and family, millions are missing out. And that puts them at risk of burnout. Employers have no excuse for robbing staff of their well-earned leave. UK workers put in billions of hours of unpaid overtime as it is. The Government must toughen up enforcement to stop bosses cheating staff out of their leave."

Adrian Crawford - a partner at law firm Kingsley Napley - stated that it had not been made clear whether employees are being denied leave or are choosing not to take it. 

He said:

“The suggestion that there are employers who are manipulating the system seems difficult to believe, so there needs to be further analysis in that respect. It’s certainly possible for employers to get things wrong. Education plays a really important role here, and a lot of smaller businesses who might not have strong HR departments might not fully understand the law. 

He added:

 “Annual leave is a health and safety issue; we know that taking time off is important in terms of staying healthy. Forcing companies to pay compensation over missed leave seems retrograde, and as we often see with millionaires, having more money will not make you happier.”

An employment lawyer at Howes Percival - Simon de Maid - stated:

“Some employers may get caught out by issuing old contracts that do not have the correct number of minimum days of annual paid leave. They can also slip up with self-employed and casual workers where there’s an assumption that because they’re not employees they’re not entitled to leave. This isn’t a case of unscrupulous employers, it’s much more likely that people just haven’t kept up to date with the law,”  adding that HR and line managers play an important role in making sure workers take their leave entitlement. 

He advised:

“Have appropriate procedures in place, communicate with employees, and keep track of who is taking leave, when they’re taking it, and how much. Taking annual leave is really important for employees' mental health, and if someone isn’t taking it there could be an underlying reason for that. It could be that they’re afraid they’re under-performing, that they’re stressed, or that they don’t want to lose out on income. Employers need to monitor leave and work on the underlying causes to address the problem."

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

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

Andrew Chamberlain, Chief Economist at Glassdoor, stated:

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

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

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

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

She added:

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

She went on to explain:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Richards - Managing Director of Indeed UK – said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ContractorCalculator CEO Dave Chaplin said:

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

He added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ruling of the EAT Judge Eady QC stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has recently released its long-anticipated final rule on Association Health Plans (AHPs).  This will allow small businesses to group together - by area or commerce - to create health plans as if they were a single large employer. Sole proprietors, as well as their families, will be permitted to join such plans helping millions of working Americans gain access to quality, affordable health insurance for themselves and their families.

Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta said:

"President Donald J. Trump is expanding affordable health coverage options for America's small businesses and their employees. Many of our laws make healthcare coverage more expensive for small businesses than large companies. AHPs are about more choice, more access, and more coverage. The President's decision helps working Americans – and their families – purchase quality, affordable health coverage."

The Association Health Plans will not be subject to the essential health benefits requirements of the Affordable Care Act, which necessitate cover for mental health, substance abuse, maternity care – amongst other matters. 

The DOL states that, as many small businesses and their employees have struggled with government restrictions that limit access to quality, affordable health coverage, this AHP reform will address many of the inequalities between small and large businesses in access to that coverage.  The reform allows small employers – many of whom are facing much higher premiums and fewer coverage options – a greater ability to join together and gain many of the advantages enjoyed by large employers.

The administration’s plan is to encourage competition in the health insurance markets and lower the cost of coverage.   In co-operation with the executive order - issued by the president in October 2017 – AHP’s will not be able to restrict membership based on health status or charge higher premiums to sicker individuals, which were two of the biggest fears about expanding AHP’s.

Alexander Acosta has stated that in the future, as many as 4 million people will take advantage of coverage under the new plan offerings. This is in accordance with the estimate of Avalere Health – a DC-based healthcare consulting firm – who has predicted that as many as 4.3 million people will leave the individual and small-group insurance markets to enroll in association health plans over the next five years.

The Association Health Plans will become available on September 1, 2018.

Self-employed workers can join the plans under the new regulation and in addition, groups that want to form an association plan do not need to have another purpose beyond providing health coverage to members.

The Labor Department's Employee Benefits Security Administration will monitor the new plans to ensure compliance with the law and protect consumers. Also, States will continue to share enforcement authority with the Federal Government. 

Research carried out by software provider, Workday - in association with the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) - revealed that only 52% of organisations were using people data to deal with issues in business.  This has resulted in experts calling for specialist data training.

Of the 3,852 business professionals surveyed in the study of HR departments’ experiences, it was found that 39% did not have access to people data for the purpose of making decisions but 35% of non-HR professionals thought that their HR team was expert in people analytics.

Workday identified a link between the use of people analytics and business performance, with 65% of the respondents who worked in people analytics cultures feeling that their business performed better than competitors who were less data-driven. 

Human capital and governance adviser for the CIPD - Edward Houghton - said:

 “We need to see greater investment in the skills needed to understand people data and we need to encourage the use of people analytics across different functions in organisations, and in finance in particular.  HR must lead the development of cultures that share a ‘common language’ when it comes to people data and a shared understanding and appreciation of the positive impact people data can have on business outcomes.”

Gonzalo Benedit - President of EMEA and APJ at Workday - stated:

“People analytics should be available in real-time, and on demand so that that they can be quickly used to make effective decisions. While the business case for people analytics may be clear, the data must be accessible and used as only then will businesses have the confidence to use it most effectively."

Bernard Marr - author of Data Strategy - speaking at the Cognition X conference in London, warned that “people people” were sometimes in want of the mathematical know-how needed to properly take advantage of HR analytics.  He argued that by splitting the function in two, those with stronger people support skills could create a positive employee experience and those who were more analytical could focus on capturing data and insight. He stated:

“The two functions don’t always blend well.”

Also warning that HR was currently failing to appreciate the true workplace potential of artificial intelligence (AI), Bernard Marr said they were “just jumping on the bandwagon” rather than taking time to assess the strategic points and identify the genuine issues that AI could solve.

Colin Strong - Global Head of Behavioural Science at Ipsos Mori - told People Management that he was not convinced that the case had been made for people analytics as a driver of business success.  He said:

“Workplace metrics are important but they are only part of the story. There’s more to people management than can be reflected in a set of data.”

According to a new survey by Total Jobs, one in four workers would leave their jobs if they were not allowed to work from home.  Amongst millennials, that percentage increases to 45 percent.

The survey - consisting of over 1,000 workers and 260 employers - showed that remote working is in the top five most important benefits when looking for a new job and surpassed other perks such as enhanced parental leave, travel allowances and learning and development.

Of those seeking employment, 20 percent said that they would choose to take employment where they were offered remote working in preference to one where they were not.  

Women were found to appreciate the flexibility that remote working offers, with 24 percent preferring the option of working from home or in the office compared to 16 percent of men.

Of the bosses surveyed, two-thirds stated that they offer remote working to their employees.  The reason given by 38 percent of bosses for offering this perk is that it assists staff in their work-life balance – whilst 25 percent stated that it was to reduce sick leave.

One-fifth of employers consider that their staff are more productive and happier when working remotely and that is why they offer it.   Employees agree with this – 21 per cent of workers believe they are more productive when working from home and 28 percent also believe that it is a show of trust from their boss.

However, contrary to this, 12 percent of bosses do not allow remote working – citing difficulty in managing those employees working from home.  In addition, colleagues of those working remotely do not believe that the home workers are putting enough effort into their work.

Two-thirds of UK employees are allowed to work from home whilst 35 percent are still not given that option. 

Analysis by the TUC shows that the number of people working from home has slowed down with one in 16 of the workforce working from home in 2016 and 2017 and with managers as the most likely to work from home - followed by Associate Professionals such as architects, engineers and designers.

The Group Marketing Director at Total Jobs - Martin Talbot, said:

“With the UK in the throes of a productivity crisis, now is the time for employers to find ways of addressing this issue. The research finds that many people work best from home, however, many employers don’t trust their team enough to work independently.  Companies, as well as the wider economy, would benefit from improving embracing remote working.  Our research also confirms a shift towards remote working, with an increasing number of millennials viewing the option to work remotely as a priority when looking for a new job.  With news that 28% of workers would change jobs if their current employer did not offer remote working, it is more important than ever for businesses to improve their work from home offering.”

Amongst the staff at recruitment agency Workchain – who were prosecuted for illegally opting staff out of workplace pensions – was an HR and compliance officer.  She was one of five senior employees, who had been encouraged by two directors of the company, to mislead the National Employment Savings Trust (NEST).

By logging in to the organisation’s online pension system and using employees’ personal details followed by termination of temporary employees’ workplace pension membership, the company failed to pay money on employer pension contributions.  If employees wish to opt out of the pension, auto-enrolment regulations state that they have to do it personally. 

After concerns about Workchain by NEST to TPR - the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate - Derbyshire Constabulary and Nottinghamshire Constabulary conducted an investigation which resulted in prosecution by the Pensions Regulator (TPR) - the first that they had ever instigated.  The accusation was that the parties used unauthorised access to a computer programme under section 1 (1) of the Computer Misuse Act 1990.  By using the pass codes of 67 workers to log into NEST’s online portal, the senior staff members of the company had opted them out of their pension.

Darren Ryder, director of automatic enrolment at TPR, said:

“Workchain’s directors saw denying their temporary workers pensions as a quick and easy way to save the company money. Both they and their senior staff thought nothing of misusing NEST’s online portal. Thanks to the vigilance of NEST, their attempt to cheat the automatic enrolment system failed.  Automatic enrolment is not an option; it’s the law and the law is clear – no one can opt a worker out of a pension scheme, even if the worker agrees. Those who try to avoid their pension responsibilities in this way face prosecution.”

All seven of the defendants pleaded guilty at Derby Magistrates’ Court and District Judge Jonathan Taaffe committed the case to Derby Crown Court for a sentencing hearing on 28 June 2018.  In the Magistrates’ Court, the maximum sentence for computer misuse is six months’ imprisonment and an unlimited fine.  However, if sentence is passed in the Crown Court, the sentence can be up to two years’ imprisonment and an unlimited fine. 

Nathan Long, Senior Pension Aanalyst at Hargreaves Lansdown, stated:

“The Pension Regulator rightly continues to clamp down on rogue employers who ignore or disobey workplace pension rules. The country’s retirement prospects depend on everyone squirreling money away for the future and unscrupulous employers simply cannot be allowed to undermine this vital initiative.  Employers are responsible for enrolling their staff into pensions, but staff have ultimate responsibility for their financial future. This particular case involved treating temporary [employees] differently to permanent staff, which given more modern, flexible working patterns makes it particularly important. Any employers who are not doing their bit should get their house in order quickly, as the regulator once again shows it is not to be crossed.”

Rolls-Royce have announced they are to cut 4,600 jobs over the next two years, with full implementation by 2020.

Chief Executive Warren East stated that the reorganisation will be the company’s biggest in the last 20 years and will affect around 10 per cent of management and back-office staff. About two-thirds of the cuts will be at their Derby headquarters, with around a third expected to happen by the end of this year.

Since the first of five profit warnings were given in 2014, 5,000 jobs have been cut, with a saving of £250m. Whilst this restructuring will cost £500m to carry out, it is expected to save the company £400m a year by the end of 2020 and will allow for future investment in civil aerospace, defence and power systems. Warren East state:

“We have world class technology [but] we are just not a world class business to go alongside it.”

Added to Rolls-Royce’s difficulties have been the cost implications associated with the issues on the Trent 1000 engine. Parts on the engine - which powers Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner - have been wearing faster than anticipated, causing more than 30 aircraft to be grounded. The problems of premature corrosion will take years to modify and has been estimated by some experts to cost in the region of £1bn to rectify.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) have stated that - for business owners - talking to HR professionals can be enlightening.

More than half the UK’s employment and turnover is comprised of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) – but at the recent meeting of the business, energy and industrial strategy (BEIS) committee, it was suggested that there were a number of barriers preventing the achievement of better productivity.

The scope of the inquiry was to look at what the Government can do to help small businesses improve their productivity, particularly through access to management training; the latest best business practices; and information on the availability of financial support.

In addition, the enquiry would also look at the subject of late payments to small suppliers and study the role of the new Small Business Commissioner in tackling deliberate poor treatment by major companies.

In its evidence to the enquiry, the CIPD argued that the majority of SMEs required constant external support to improve their management and development capabilities – and added that the government should be prepared to offer this.

Ben Willmott, Head of Public Policy at the CIPD told People Management:

“Many owner-managers of SMEs have very limited experience around managing people and, if you ask them about the challenges facing their organisations and businesses, they won’t say they’ve got people management issues, they will talk about the business challenges. But if they talk to an HR consultant who recognises these challenges as people issues, they can have that ‘eureka’ moment. This is why a relationship with an HR consultant can, for SMEs, be as important as a relationship with an external accountant.” 

Further evidence submitted repeated the suggestion made by the CIPD that HR managers should be given additional skills, but also stressing the requirement for a system that accommodates the miscellaneous needs of SMEs.

Professor Mike Wright, fellow of the British Academy of Management stated:

“If we are to improve management capability, it is important to recognise that not all SMEs are the same and they require training and support targeted to their specific needs.” 

He added:

“There is a need to develop support mechanisms that improve the high-level management skills of family-owned SMEs, and enhance their understanding of governance options through better training.” 

The BEIS Committee has published submissions - in writing - from a range of businesses and organisations including Zurich Insurance; the Rail Supply Group and the CIPD.  At the beginning of June, they will hear from SMEs and training providers with witnesses including representatives from the CIPD; Goldman Sachs; Open University; Monster Group UK and the Federation of Small Businesses.

The Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee - Rachel Reeves MP said:

"SMEs make up more than 99% of private businesses and account for more than half of turnover and employment in the UK. Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy and it's vital that that we get the business support right to boost innovation and the productivity of our SMEs. The written evidence we've received highlights a range of issues which hinder small businesses and damage their productivity, but two main themes emerge - the often crippling impact of late payments by major companies and the lack of effective management training.
 
The devastating problems for small firms posed by delayed payments by large suppliers were highlighted by the recent collapse of Carillion, which left unpaid debts running in to the millions of pounds. We've questioned the Small Business Commissioner on what is being done to tackle the poor treatment of small and medium-sized businesses and we shall continue to monitor action in this area during this inquiry.

In our evidence hearing on Tuesday, we will focus on the issue of management training, hearing from SMEs and from training providers about some of the issues in providing effective management training to help develop leadership in SMEs.”

The rights of tens of millions of employees have possibly been limited after the US Supreme Court ruled that employers can force workers to use individual mediation instead of class-action lawsuits to press legal claims.

By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled - for the first time - that employees cannot join together to challenge violations of federal labor laws if they sign employee agreements to arbitrate claims.

This is a ruling based on the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) - which could affect the rights of tens of millions of private-sector workers who do not belong to a union - and the ruling develops previous Supreme Court decisions that let companies channel disputes with consumers and other businesses into arbitration.

The decision applies directly to wage-and-hour claims.  But in addition, it is thought that it may let employers avoid class-action job discrimination - although the court did not directly address that issue. Civil rights advocates have suggested that the ruling will threaten class-action discrimination lawsuits. 

Fatima Goss Graves - President of the National Women’s Law Center said:

“The Supreme Court has taken away a powerful tool for women to fight discrimination at work. Instead of banding together with co-workers to push back against sexual harassment, pay discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, racial discrimination, wage theft and more, employees may now be forced behind closed doors into an individual, costly -- and often secret -- arbitration process."

On behalf of the majority of judges, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote:

".......The policy may be debatable but the law is clear: Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written.  While Congress is of course always free to amend this judgment we see nothing suggesting it did so in the NLRA – much less that it manifested a clear intention to displace the Arbitration Act. Because we can easily read Congress’s statutes to work in harmony that is where our duty lies.”

Employment groups and attorneys everywhere celebrated the ruling and employers are now likely to get their employees to sign the type of employment agreement that the High Court has ruled effective.  This will have great power in protecting businesses from costly wage-and-hour lawsuits.

An attorney who represents management in labor-management disputes - Ron Chapman – stated:

“It gives employers the green light to eliminate their single largest employment law risk with the stroke of a pen.

According to a People Management poll of 600 people, HR and L&D professionals frequently feel overwhelmed by work-related stress. This may put their mental health under greater pressure than the rest of the population. 

The poll consisted of 641 individuals who were questioned in depth about their working lives, aspirations and personal background.   It was found that 37 percent felt extremely stressed or overwhelmed - because of work - at least four times a month and 50 percent at least once a month. 

The results offered an insight into the good and bad of HR life. Findings showed that flexi-work is being embraced, with 56 percent taking the opportunity to work from home.  Automation was welcomed – again, with 56 percent seeing it as a positive for HR and generally, it was found that their pay and progression opportunities were viewed as being satisfactory.

However, for 44 percent work is too often detrimental to their mental health and for 38 percent to their physical health, with concerns over bullying and - in some cases - lack of access to learning opportunities.  Only 26 per cent of those in the study gave a positive reaction to the question on mental health and 20 percent on physical health.

CIPD’s UK Working Life Survey found that 22 percent of the general working population was of the opinion that work was bad for their mental health, which pointed to the fact that HR professionals reporting negative mental health was significantly higher. 

In the CIPD magazine, chief executive Peter Cheese wrote that:

“It is noticeable that perceived levels of stress and concerns around mental and physical health are higher among our profession than we observe in the population as a whole.”

“This is such an important issue in the wider workforce today, but we must also make sure we look after ourselves – we can’t be the cobbler’s children.”

“We need to ensure the proper training and support is in place to be able to manage our stress, particularly as we are also a key point of support for many in the workplace.” 

At an event to mark the launch of the report, Peter Cheese stated:

“The lower end of the workforce spectrum are not always feeling well supported, not given a lot of resources in terms of training, and lack sight of progression. Then above them you have managers who are very broadly stressed. That’s a pretty heady mix.”

He added:

 “The reality is if you’re over-stressed as a management team, you’re not going to be so good at managing or looking after your people, and stress flows downhill. Those are some very important dilemmas to understand.”

The changing nature of HR duties was also highlighted, with a report that an average of 32 percent of the day was spent answering emails and 22 percent in meetings.

According to a 2018 WorldatWork survey - which reflected responses from 867 WorldatWork members - it is suggested that employers are beginning to move away from the practice of conducting formal performance reviews.

Fewer employers conducted reviews in 2017 compared to 2016 - 91 percent against 94 percent. In addition, fewer employers gave formal performance ratings - 80 percent in 2017 against 85 percent in 2016.

Alison Avalos, CCP, GRP – Director of Research and Certification for WorldatWork – said:

“This move away from some of the more traditional elements of performance management is consistent with the expectations we had going into the survey.  There’s been a lot of buzz about organizations moving to nontraditional programs, and while they aren’t abandoning traditional performance management systems entirely, there is evidence that they are looking at emerging practices and implementing individual components of cutting-edge programs. What we’re seeing this year is that continued shift toward potentially more effective ways of driving and assessing performance.”

On the same subject, survey results released from Korn Ferry say that formal performance reviews fail to achieve the intended result of helping employees become better at their jobs. More than 500 professionals were surveyed by Korn Ferry and of these more than 75 percent said they have annual performance reviews with their boss. However, nearly 42 percent said that their annual performance review had no effect or was ineffective at improving their professional performance.

Katie Lemaire - Senior Client Partner at Korn Ferry - stated:

“Organizations realize that managing business performance is a very dynamic process, so having a once-per-year meeting that hopes to both evaluate and improve performance is a tall ask. It is still critical that employees receive regular feedback and companies have the opportunity to re-evaluate their processes.”

The Korn Ferry survey also found that annual performance reviews take a large amount of time - with seven or more hours being cited by the largest percentage of respondents - as the period spent on their review.

One of the most forceful reasons for performance reviews is to establish rewards and pay for employees. However, Katie Lemaire said:

“It’s critical that managers regularly have conversations about performance throughout the year, which is far more effective in driving performance improvement than trying to have a conversation about what people could or should be doing differently at the same time that you are sharing compensation information with them.”

James Pennington - an attorney with Ogletree Deakins in Birmingham, Alabama, referred to the 2018 WorldatWork survey at the firm's recent 2018 National Workplace Strategies Seminar and suggested that managers who intend to continue conducting formal performance reviews should write goals at the start of the performance cycle, adjusting them if necessary.  They should also give leaders guidance on making feedback an ongoing conversation and using objective criteria as much as possible; request comments and examples to support ratings and allow an employee comments and an appeals process.

On 25 May 2018, the UK will implement the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and there will be significant changes of which employers will need to be aware.  GDPR replaces the Data Protection Act 1998 in the UK and marks the start of a radical new data protection - with significant penalties for non-compliance.

The new regulation brings into line data protection laws across the EU and it will apply not only to EU companies, but to any company processing the personal data of individuals in the EU. This can be in regard to offering goods or services - or to monitoring the behaviour of individuals.

Under the GDPR, employers will need to provide detailed information, such as how long data will be stored for; if data will be transferred to other countries; information on the right to make a subject access request and information on the right to have personal data deleted or rectified in certain instances.

Public authorities and private companies involved in regular monitoring - or large-scale processing of sensitive data - will need to appoint a data protection officer to give advice on GDPR obligations, monitor compliance and liaise with the data protection authority.

Head of content at XpertHR, Jo Stubbs stated:

“The clock is ticking to the introduction of the new GDPR. However, businesses that haven’t yet started their compliance journey shouldn’t panic. There is still time to start the process, and employers should focus on the most important elements first. The GDPR is an opportunity for organisations to embed a cultural change. By championing privacy ‘by design and default’, HR can seize the positive aspects of the new Regulation.”

It is suggested that as HR teams are used to handling data and data requests, they can help their business to identify and help solve any existing problems and anticipate any that may arise later.  As HR teams write policies to secure workplace compliance, they can use their knowledge to draft GDPR policies.

As it will be vital that it is documented that their business has complied with the GDPR obligations, HR can use their risk management experience to assist in this.  In addition, HR teams can provide training to employees to operate effectively in a GDPR-compliant situation, ensuring that their organisation understands their obligations. 

Employers that breach the GDPR can be subjected to major penalties which include fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual worldwide turnover, whichever is the greater. The level of the fine will depend on the sort of breach and if there are any mitigating factors to be taken into account.  

A new Office for National Statistics (ONS) report – ‘Contracts that do not guarantee a minimum number of hours: April 2018’ – plus data from the latest Labour Force Survey and an ONS business survey, estimated that 6% of UK employment contracts were carried out on a zero hours basis in November 2017.    This equates to 1.8 million contracts, which is an increase of 100,000 on the equivalent figures for November 2016. 

Zero hour contracts refer to those where no guaranteed hours are offered to the worker.

According to the report, over 54% of those on zero hour contracts were women and 66% work part-time.  Of younger workers, over 8% are still in full-time education and 36% are aged between 16 and 24. 

Head of policy at the Recruitment & Employment Confederation, Sophie Wingfield, said:

“Many people on zero-hours contracts are in full-time education – the advantage of having that flexibility allows students to fit in hours around their studies. Flexible contracts also offer employers the ability to respond quickly to the fluctuating demands of the economy.”

She added:

“When managed well and by choice, such contracts are an important means of offering people increased choice and flexibility in their working lives. These contracts also offer a part-time option that people choose to fit around their other commitments and data has shown that more than half of employees on zero-hours find that it creates a positive work-life balance. For some workers it won’t be their only job, but a way to top up with additional income or get experience in a new or different field.” 

However, Catherine Sermon, Employment Director at Business in the Community, stated that many people were facing a choice between jobs that fail to lift them out of poverty or continuing in unemployment, which she considered was no choice at all.

Low pay experts have been approached to formally seek their views on the impact of higher minimum wage rates for those on zero-hours and non-guaranteed hours contracts.  The government has promised to review the recommendations made in the Taylor review in July 2017 but the experts say the real test will be whether it is implemented in the future. 

Diane Nicol, Partner at Pinsent Masons - and a Taylor review panel member - stated that the review “considered the thorny issue of how to protect those who are in more precarious engagements – such as zero-hours contracts and non-guaranteed hours contracts.”

She also asked the Low Pay Commission to consider how a higher national minimum wage might “apply to these more precarious workers”.

The Low Pay Commission is presently consulting on the minimum wage and will publish its findings with its annual wage report.  This will also take into account the impact of the wage proposal for zero hours contractors.  It will also consider practices employed by countries where zero hour contracts are banned, or where employers are fined for giving less than three hours notice of work shifts.

The question of whether notice of termination of employment takes effect when posted, when delivered, or when received personally - if the employment contract does not state it - was the subject of a hearing at the Supreme Court in April 2018.

In the case of Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Foundation Trust v Haywood, the decision - by a majority - was in favour of Mrs Haywood, a long time employee.

The facts stated in the case were that Mrs Haywood had told the Trust that she would be on annual leave from 19th April until 3rd May 2011.  On 20th April 2011, the Trust sent her three letters terminating her employment - by reason of redundancy - with 12 weeks' notice.  

One of the letters was sent by recorded delivery and was picked up from the Post Office on 26th April by a relative, who left it at her home to be opened upon her return on 27th April.  The second letter was sent by standard post and the third to her husband’s email address, which he did not read until the morning of 27th April. Mrs Haywood was out of the country during her holiday time.

Mrs Haywood’s contract of employment did not state when notice given under the contract would be deemed to be received.  The Court had to decide whether the notice of termination expired before Mrs Haywood’s 50th birthday on 20th July 2011, as she was entitled to an enhanced early retirement pension if she was still employed on her 50th birthday.  For the lower pension to be due, Mrs Haywood would have to been given notice by 26th April 2011.

The argument put forward by the Trust was that notice was given when the letter was delivered - as in when it would have arrived in the ordinary course of post - whilst Mrs Haywood argued that notice was not given until it came to her attention. In those circumstances, the notice would have started to run on 27th April and would have expired on 20th July - her 50th birthday - entitling her to the enhanced pension.

In finding for Mrs Haywood, the court stated that in the absence of an express contractual term dealing with the situation, notice of termination is only effective when it comes to the employee’s attention and they have had a reasonable opportunity to read it.  Therefore, Mrs Haywood was entitled to an enhanced pension.

The implication of this case serves as a reminder of the importance of contracts providing certainty where the issuing notice of termination of employment is concerned - particularly where the date of notice expiry is vital.

Aegon, with the Aegon UK consumer and customer panel, recently conducted a survey on 685 adults - 380 with workplace pensions - which found that 58% of millennial respondents think it is their employer’s responsibility to help them plan for retirement.  In addition, it was found that 23% of millennial respondents had no idea how much their employer is paying into their occupational pension and 41% with workplace pensions said they were not aware that they get tax relief on their workplace pension contributions.

The research also found that 51% of respondents aged between 18 and 34 with a workplace pension are not actively encouraged by their employer to check their occupational pension pot.

However, of the 72% of people with workplace pensions, millennials were the most likely to have picked their own investment fund – in fact, 30% selected their own investment fund rather than staying in their scheme’s default option.

Kate Smith, Head of Pensions, Aegon – stated:   

“Choosing their own investment funds is a promising sign that the younger generation is open to taking responsibility for their retirement planning and making active decisions. It also suggests young people are taking a greater interest in what their savings are invested in, and there’s evidence to suggest they are more likely to opt for socially responsible investment strategies. The onset of pension digitization also makes it easier to switch between funds, which is likely to appeal to a more tech-savvy generation. We hope this trend towards increased investment engagement continues for generations to come.”

The survey also found that millennials are looking to their employers for help with their retirement planning.

Kate Smith commented:

“..............We’d like to see more employers encouraging their younger employees to get into the habit of saving through their workplace pension.

While auto-enrolment gets people out of the starting blocks, it’s only a small part of the solution to saving for retirement. Employees should be encouraged to build on this to take an active role to grow their retirement savings.” 

At the end of April 2018 the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced that the 2018 annual contribution limit to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) for persons with family coverage under a qualifying High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) is restored to $6,900.  

This follows a confusing series of IRS actions whereby in May 2017 the IRS announced in Revenue Procedure 2017-37 that the 2018 family-coverage contribution limit for HSAs would be $6,900, but in March 2018 they announced the 2018 family limit was reduced by $50, from $6,900 to $6,850.

As the current tax year was already in progress, this change would have entailed HSA trustees to implement fixes to their systems. The IRS listened to appeals from the industry, and has now reinstated the original 2018 family limit of $6,900.

An HSA is a tax-exempt savings account employees can use to pay for qualified health expenses. To be eligible to contribute to an HSA an employee must be covered by a qualified high deductible health plan (HDHP); must not have any disqualifying health coverage; must not be enrolled in Medicare and not be claimed as a dependent on someone else’s tax return.

Chatrane Birbal - senior advisor of government relations at the Society for Human Resource Management – stated:

“SHRM applauds the new IRS guidance to allow employees with family coverage under a high-deductible health plan to proceed in contributing up to $6,900 to an HAS. The abrupt announcement earlier this year to lower the 2018 contribution level to $6,850 created confusion for employees and an administrative burden on employers that offer HSAs, especially since benefit offerings were solidified last year. Some employers had already begun making the necessary changes to comply with the IRS earlier guidance, which required employers to update payroll systems and revise employee benefit communications, among a number of other systematic updates."

Information will be available to employers from HSA administrators or trustees regarding any updates they will require for their payroll systems.  However, some HSA administrators had not introduced the changes as they were hopeful that the IRS would restore the original limit.

Ryan McCostlin - a team member at Bernard Health, a benefits brokerage and HR software company in Nashville, Tennessee – said:

"Generally, employees who over-contribute to an HSA and don't correct it will get hit with a 6 percent excise tax. Most people who maxed out their HSA contribution schedule early in the year probably didn't do anything after getting an e-mail from HR notifying them that the 2018 limit had been reduced back in March, and they would have been hit with an excise tax if not for this most recent change. The good news for them is that as a result of their inaction they're back in a good spot!"

In the case of Paganas v. Total Management Solution, LLC (TMS) and others, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently stated that Mr Paganas - the plaintiff - could still be entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  This vacated a decision by the District Court who were instructed, on remand, to consider whether Mr Paganas qualifies for the administrative exemption under 29 C.F.R. § 541.200.

Mr Paganas had filed a complaint alleging that TMS violated the overtime wage provisions of the FSLA and the NYLL.

The plaintiff was employed by TMS as a building manager at St. John's University in New York from July 2007 to May 2014.  His annual salary was $80,000 and his duties included ensuring the cleanliness of buildings; supervising 6 to 15 cleaners; directing cleaners in their work; reallocating workers when short-staffed and setting up rooms for meetings or events.

He attended a daily management meeting with his supervisor Richard Rossi, who was a director of site maintenance for TMS from December 2007 to March 2011.  At these meetings Mr Paganas was given orders – by Mr Rossi – after which he (the plaintiff) selected the cleaners to carry out the orders and supervised them.  Mr Paganas also had a separate agreement in which he was paid for overseeing athletic facilities during basketball games.

Although a collective bargaining agreement banned him from performing cleaning duties, Mr Paganas testified that he had performed nonsupervisory cleaning duties for 90 percent of the time. The District Court held that this testimony was not credited and found it to be untrue - determining that Mr Paganas’s primary duty was management.

In the discussion of whether the plaintiff’s primary duty could be classified as management under the executive exemption, the District Court cited language from 29 C.F.R. § 541.200(a)(2) - which addresses the administrative exemption. The executive and administrative exemptions should be treated separately as they require the employer to prove different facts regarding an employee’s work.

The Appeals Court stated that the District Court did not address the administrative exemption in its decision, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Professionals have pointed out that this case should serve as a reminder that employers should make periodic analysis of exempt employees' actual job duties, as despite an employee being called a manager and having authority to supervise, it does not always mean that the employee is exempt from overtime obligations.

A survey conducted by the National Employee Mental Wellbeing has shown that 84% of employees have experienced physical, psychological, or behavioural symptoms of poor mental health where work was a contributing factor. 

Ciara Morrison, Head of HR and Talent at Instant Offices, has also been researching into the importance of addressing Mental Health in the workplace and how businesses can assist in promoting a healthy work-life balance, as around 91% of managers agree that their actions affect their staff’s wellbeing.

The National Employee Mental Wellbeing survey found that only 22% of managers have admitted to receiving some form of training on mental health at work, whilst 49% say that they would find it useful to receive even basic training in common mental health conditions.

Whilst 60% of board members and senior managers believe their organisation supports people with mental health issues - only 11% discussed a mental health problem with their line manager.   

Although 76% of line managers believe that employee wellbeing is ultimately their responsibility, in the case of a staff member with depression, only 68% of female managers and 58% of male managers were found to feel confident enough to respond to the issue.  

The same survey showed that 35% of employees did not approach anyone for support on the most recent occasion they experienced poor mental health and where they were concerned about a colleague’s mental health, 86% would think twice before offering to help. 

Sadly, it was found that 9% of employees who experienced symptoms of poor mental health experienced disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal.

A new research from the Deloitte Centre for Health Solutions states that workplace mental health and wellbeing is at a tipping point and the report is designed as a call to action for employers - whatever their current performance regarding mental health and wellbeing strategies.

According to Deloitte, mental ill-health is one of the leading causes of absence from work in the UK with one in every six employees suffering from mental health issues – stress, anxiety and reduced focus also taking a toll on relationships and physical health.

Their findings show that:

• progress towards greater awareness and recognition of mental health is occurring at a slower rate in the workplace compared to in public spaces more generally;
• costs associated with poor mental health and well-being result from absence costs, from presence and turnover costs - as well as from staff that are not fully enthusiastic and engaged due to low mental wellbeing;
•  greater public awareness, increasing political attention and an increased emphasis on employer responsibilities are driving an increased interest in workplace mental health and wellbeing.

Amongst the suggestions Deloitte make to employers are to get workplace mental health on their agenda and to encourage employees to support colleagues.  At present, it was found that employers failed to see mental health and wellbeing as a priority.   

H-1B visa is in more demand this year than last – in fact, demand is nearly double what it was in 2016. It is not an immigrant visa, although it does allow for foreigners to work legally in the US for at least two years. 

Republican Senators Orrin Hatch and Jeff Flake introduced legislation that aims to increase the annual quota of H-1B visas to around 100,000.  It also lifts the cap on the 20,000 visas going to recent graduates of U.S. schools - if the employer agrees to sponsor the applicant for a green card. The bill would also provide a special visa to work for spouses of H-1B holders.

However, it is one of the most controversial immigration topics. The visa program has been widely criticized by US technology workers who have been replaced by foreign workers - or feel their salaries have affected.

According to a survey by Chicago-based Envoy Global (an immigration services firm) on 401 HR professionals and hiring managers, it was found that demand for foreign workers remains high despite stricter federal immigration policies. 

Fifty-nine percent of respondents said they would be hiring more foreign employees at their U.S. offices - up from 50% in 2017 and 34% in 2016.

Richard Burke, CEO of Envoy, stated:

"The survey respondents tell us they need higher skilled immigrants and think Washington should increase the cap for the H-1B."  

He added:

"The U.S. issues 85,000 new H-1B visas annually, including 20,000 that go to foreign nationals graduating from Masters or Ph.D. programs in the U.S. A similar number of H-1B visas get renewed each year.  We asked if human resources executives would prefer a merit-based immigration system and 77% of them said yes.”

The competition is especially fierce for those who possess high-level skills in technology and Richard Burke said:

"There is a continuing imbalance between supply and demand for talent. The jobless rate is very low by historic standards, and even lower if focused on college-educated workers. But companies are hiring. Employers are bullish about the economy. And driven by the lack of U.S. universities graduating people with STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) degrees, they look overseas."

Because the demand is so high, employers are offering attractive perks to prospective employees including immigration-related perks.  Some 92 percent are offering dependent support - primarily in green card application processing, cultural assimilation and language instruction.

Relocation expenses are being offered by 41% and 39% offer housing costs, with 71% saying they will pay for temporary housing and 32% for mortgage-related benefits.

Seventy-two percent of the 30% offering travel expenses also offer free airfare for the foreign nationals to visit their home countries and 59% also include immediate family members.

Transportation costs/rental cars/company cars and cars for an employee’s spouse are also some of the perks on offer, as are local orientation services and home and school searches.

The ultimate perk for talent from abroad is the chance to attain permanent residency in the United States. Employers are offering green card sponsorship sooner and more often.

Richard Burke said:

"We believe green card sponsorships are going up because of the uncertainty around the H-1B program and other temporary work visas."

Ann Cun - founder and managing attorney of Accel Visa Attorneys, an immigration law firm in San Leandro, California stated:

"I have seen that trend increase in the past five to 10 years. We have an increasingly mobile and global workforce. And if you move individuals around the world, you have to offer incentives in order to entice them to take on life-altering decisions that don't just impact the worker but their entire family."

She added:

"Companies willing to take the additional steps to adopt a formal, proactive program to help promote employees in a way that builds their professional dossier so that they can qualify for a shorter, more expedited priority classification will boost the value the worker feels within the company, strengthen loyalty and increase retention."

As UK employers with more than 250 staff were required by the Government to report their gender pay gap by 4th April 2018, it exposed the huge inequality in pay in the airline industry.

Over 10,000 companies submitted their data by the Government deadline, including all applicable airlines.  The data is shown as both mean and median figures - median being calculated by ranking all employees from the lowest to the highest paid and simply taking the wage of the person in the middle. By measuring in this way, the average is not distorted by just a few who are excessively higher or lower than most.

What the final data revealed was that the median pay gap across all industries ran at 9.7% - however the airline industry sat well below this figure with the Irish carrier Ryanair producing the worst figures with a massive 72% median pay gap.

The second worst figure was for Jet2.com, with a median gap of 49.7% and the best - although still below the average for all industries - is British Airways with a median of 10%.

When questioned about the reason for such inequality, many of the carriers cited the imbalance in the gender ratio of more highly paid flight crew roles as a major factor.

A spokesperson for Ryanair said:

 “Like all airlines, our gender pay in the UK is materially affected by the relatively low numbers of female pilots in the aviation industry.”

And British Airways stated:

“The airline recognises that there is a gender imbalance within its pilot community and is working to address this in part through greater visibility of its female pilots to inspire the next generation.”

Whilst the exact number is difficult to count, the International Society of Women Airline Pilots maintain that females account for only between three and six percent of pilots employed by airlines worldwide. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) believes that 4.36% of all airline pilots in the US are women, while the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) states it is 4.77%.

As part of the study, the Government also required companies to report on bonus pay. In the aviation industry, almost all of the airlines disclosed that women were either on a par or ahead of men regarding who received a payout. However, the actual value of the bonuses given to women was almost always below that given to men.

According to new data analysis commissioned by The Open University (OU), more than £1.28 billion paid by employers into the apprenticeship levy is still unused and held in National Apprenticeship Service accounts. 

Just 8% (£108 million) of apprenticeship levy funds, out of the original £1.39bn paid in by businesses, had been spent in the 10 months since the scheme’s launch.

Since April 2017, eligible organisations i.e. those with an annual wage bill of more than £3m, have had to pay an apprenticeship levy to the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA). Companies can then recoup the funds from a digital ESFA administered by the National Apprenticeship Service under a PAYE scheme. However, any funding that remains in their National Apprenticeship Service accounts will expire after 24 months. The OU’s report states that employers must, therefore, act quickly to make the most of the fund, as if organisations in England continue to use the funding at the same rate, they risk losing as much as £139 million a month from April 2019.  

Concerns have been expressed that organisations could be writing the levy off as a tax and not choosing not to spend it. In the report released by the OU, it was found that 40% of business leaders reported treating the levy as a tax, and 17% stated they had no expectation of recouping their funds. These figures were confirmed by the Department for Education and Skills. 

However, Anne Milton - Apprenticeships and Skills Minister stated:

“I’ve met lots of businesses up and down the country that have already kick-started amazing apprenticeship programmes and are using their levy funds to help change lives and get the skills they need.”

She added:

“It has taken some businesses longer to get going on their apprenticeship programmes using the levy, while many that I have met are forging ahead growing the numbers of apprentices within their businesses, getting a skilled and loyal workforce.” 

Chief policy officer at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers - Simon Ashworth - stated that levy-payers were aware that there was a two-year funding window and added:

 “We don’t recognise the gloomy picture that this report paints and remain convinced that the levy will be a success. Our training provider members tell us that the levy-payers they are supporting are well aware of the two-year window in which to utilise their funding, and are strategically planning the roll-out of their apprenticeship programmes accordingly.”

“Many employers are still waiting for the apprenticeship programme they specifically want to be available to spend their levy on. We have also made it clear to the government that the absence of proper end point assessment for many standards has the making of a car crash unless action is taken quickly.”

David Willett - Corporate Director at The Open University - said:

“With such a huge amount being paid into the apprenticeship levy, it’s essential that employers in England get return on investment by embracing apprenticeships.”

“While it’s encouraging that the majority of business leaders agree with the levy in principle, it’s clear that adjustments are needed to make the levy work harder for employers. The lack of flexibility needs to be urgently addressed to ensure that organisations get value for money, and we think that modular apprenticeships, which allow organisations to develop tailor-made programmes that fit their specific needs, could be an attractive solution for both employers and the UK government.”

The full OU analysis can be read here.

According to a recent survey released by WorldatWork - a non-profit total rewards association - 44% of employers who have applied a ban on asking job candidates about their salary history stated that doing so was very or extremely simple. Only 8% reported it to be very difficult and 1% said extremely difficult. The survey consisted of 838 compensation and benefits professionals.

It was found that 37% of employers have employed a policy prohibiting interviewers from enquiring about a candidate’s salary history in all US locations - whether or not a law exists - and 35% do not ban questions about salary history.  The companies applying the ban were found to be, in general, larger organizations.  Of employers who have not implemented the ban, 40% are "somewhat likely" or "extremely likely" to do so in the next 12 months.

Sue Holloway, WorldatWork Director of Executive Compensation Strategy, said:

"As more cities and states pass laws prohibiting employers from asking job candidates about salary history, more employers are adopting nationwide U.S. policies. I'd expect this trend to continue, especially as pressure builds for employers to justify their pay practices and ensure gender pay equity."

She added:

"The idea of having to craft a total rewards offer without salary-history information can be daunting to some managers and employers, but when hiring managers and recruiters are educated and given reliable compensation data on market rates and pay ranges, the need for a candidate's salary history diminishes."

Salary history data may still be used when internal candidates are being considered for new roles, as the survey found that 84% of employers do not prohibit consideration of an internal candidate’s current pay for setting pay in a new role. Furthermore, 80% of employers rely on salary history in determining an offer that is acceptable to the candidate.

Kate Bischoff, founder of tHRive Law & Consulting based in Minneapolis, said:

"This one is tricky, because in many organizations the person putting together the offer is the person who also knows the salary. The temptation would be to increase salary based upon what someone is currently making but maybe not to where the market would put the salary—to save the organization some cash while knowing that the individual will say yes to the new job." 

But she added that the use of the current salary is not what the salary history ban laws are designed for – adding:

"They are designed to limit the use of current and previous salaries at the offer stage. So, while I get the inclination, I would still recommend employers use market rates to base salaries." 

The WorldatWork report - “Quick Survey on Salary History Bans U.S.” - summarizes the results of the survey,  gathering information to understand approaches organizations are taking to comply with new laws and the changing landscape of U.S. salary history bans. 

According to research carried out by Vitreous World on behalf of Jobsite (a leading job board for skilled professionals) on 500 UK professionals, 82% stated that a pension scheme is more important to them than a bonus or private healthcare. 

It was found that more than two thirds - before accepting a job - take into account the pension policy, on which they place more importance than other benefits.  A performance related bonus was viewed as important by 65% of those interviewed; 51% stated that medical care is an important benefit and 55% highlighted mental health and stress support as important.

By comparison, the least important benefits quoted were the season ticket loan; time off to volunteer for good causes and a day off for birthday celebrations.  

Kate Smith, Head of Pensions at pension provider Aegon, told People Management:

“Eighty-two percent is an extremely high statistic, which is great news. It shows that auto-enrolment is working and people are hearing the pension-saving message.”  

The research also showed that there was a significant difference between what employees valued in their benefits packages and what they actually received. For example, only 23% of employees received private medical cover as part of their rewards package, the same number as those stating they had access to mental health support services.  This is despite the 51% placing great importance on private medical cover.

Jamie Smith-Thompson, Managing Director at pensions advice company, Portafina said cost was an issue which forced HR to make choices over which benefits to provide. She stated:

“The pension budget is the largest so employers have to provide it by law. But with benefits like PMI, employers either don’t provide it at all or provide it only for those in senior roles.”

Jeff Fox, Principal at Aon Employee Benefits said:

“There has always been a balancing act between what the employer deems to be important versus what the employee wants. Will we ever see a complete alignment? Arguably not until we see an employer fully place the employee at the front and centre of the benefits strategy.”  He added:

“Most employees recognise that they may not want to work for the rest of their lives - they ‘work to live’ not ‘live to work’.  A pension will never be a cool benefit, but we should give employees credit for seeing its importance.”

Nick Gold, CEO of Jobsite commented:

“Many employers often believe that offering higher salaries is the way to improve the quantity and quality of applicants they receive through the door for a vacancy. Nowadays professionals are not just looking for more money in their pockets right now – especially where many feel they are subject to pressures of increasing working hours. Some are thinking more long term, and how their employers can help them reach their retirement goals sooner.”

“The answer might lie instead in diversifying their attraction strategy by highlighting other elements of their company benefits packages, in particular their pension schemes. Despite the media attention pension funds are currently receiving as big businesses struggle financially, workers are still placing trust in their employers to help them grow their retirement investment funds. Employers would be well advised to address this demand and advertise new vacancies accordingly. In doing this, potential employees looking to safeguard and maximise their finances in later life apply for jobs that offer them truly valued benefits.”

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.

Tech Cities Job Watch – who provide employers with an indicator of hiring, demand and salaries for IT jobs within the UK tech sector – have published their latest report showing that demand for new IT security skills has dropped by 5% in the past year – from the fourth quarter of 2016 to the fourth quarter of 2017.

The report shows that there was a 24% year-on-year increase in the demand for contractors but that this was overshadowed during the same period by a 10% decrease in demand for the larger market of permanent IT security staff.  However, salaries increased by 4% - the average salary for an IT security role standing at £60,004 but still remaining much lower than that of a Big Data Specialist who can expect to earn £70,945.

Ten UK cities - London, Birmingham, Brighton, Bristol, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester and Newcastle upon Tyne - are developing reputations as technology cluster hubs and are set to face challenges as hacks and security breaches are getting more prevalent.  Businesses could be vulnerable to more cyber attacks as budget cuts and the introduction of IR35 could create a disparity in the supply and remuneration in the industry.

The Director of Specialist Markets for Experis UK & Ireland, Martin Ewings, commented:

“These figures paint a complex picture of the cybersecurity landscape. While hacks are on the rise, the slowing demand for permanent IT security staff indicates that businesses are focusing on up-skilling current employees to ensure that they have the skills needed. The Internet of Things (IoT) has transformed the way that companies across every industry work; and cyber security is now everyone’s responsibility – not just the IT departments. From Web Development to Big Data and Mobile, businesses are conscious that IT Security needs to be factored into all digital projects from the start and employers are up-skilling their existing workforce in response. However, in what is being dubbed ‘the year of regulation’ and following several years dominated by major hacks and security breaches, businesses need to ensure that they are not resting on their laurels when it comes to keeping pace with the ever more sophisticated cyber threats they will face.”

He added:

“This trend is the result of a combination of different factors in the public and private sectors. On the one hand, businesses are plugging their short-term skills gap with more contractors but allocating them to lower value, higher volume security tasks; freeing up the permanent staff to focus on their more complex workload. But developments in the public sector are having an even bigger and long-lasting impact on the short-term market. Budget cuts and the introduction of IR35 have artificially forced down the market value of IT Security contractor day rates.” 

And he concluded with:

“The complex architecture and high-profile nature of public sector work will always ensure the volume demand of IT Security contractor work, but the downward pressure on day-rates could see the supply of workers transition to permanent roles in the private sector – potentially leaving the public sector understaffed and vulnerable to attack. Many contractors are uniting in response to this, forming their own contractor businesses to work on a subscription-based model. If this trend continues, we could see these new players disrupt the traditional large enterprise outsourcers in 2018 and beyond.”

According to Mercer’s Impact of US Corporate Tax Reform on Employee Rewards poll which was conducted in January, 79% of employers are expecting to receive tax savings from the new tax law. 

Approximately, one-third - 32% of the 241 companies who participated - expect to redirect some portion of corporate income tax savings into their employee reward programs.  47 percent have stated that they do not plan to redirect the savings to any employee programs and 22% state that they do not expect any tax savings.

HR professionals have seen many stories about giant organizations passing their savings to their employees but, until the study, it has not been possible to get a true picture of just how many employers - percentage wise - that will be. 

Since the U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed there have been several high-profile reports from companies announcing plans to redirect tax savings into increased minimum wages or one-time bonuses for their employees, either of which would be welcomed by their employees. 

The survey results reveal that employers are also considering a broader range of actions.  Some survey participants said that they anticipate increasing investment in employee training and development programs - with redirected tax savings - than any other action.  This is a sign that many companies are looking for longer-term investments in human capital.

Mary Ann Sardone - a partner and the North America Workforce Rewards Practice Leader with Mercer - says the findings suggest that companies are thinking of tactical ways to use the tax savings for long-term goals.  She stated:

“Using redirected tax savings for employee training and development signals that many companies are looking for longer-term investment in their human capital.  While tax reform is still new, many companies are considering a wide range of potential employee investments as they evaluate their approach.  As with any strategic human capital investment, alignment with overall business and people strategy is critical to having a lasting impact.”

One major example is AT&T. The company announced it would give a $1,000 bonus to more than 200,000 U.S. workers and invest $1 billion in the U.S. economy because of the new tax law.

Adam Michel, policy analyst for economic studies at The Heritage Foundation, thinks the moves that businesses are making show proof that tax reform is working.  He stated:

“Raises, bonuses and new investments spurred by tax reform show that the Republicans tax reform is working how they said it would. Businesses across America are putting their tax cuts to work for the American people.  This first wave of stories is great news, but the real benefits are yet to come.  Tax reform expands the economic pie so that more Americans will be better off.”

$4.5 million for an employer's failure to grant additional leave under state law was recently granted by a Californian court – in the case of Hill v. Asian American Drug Abuse Program Inc.  

Although several previous court rulings have come down on the side of the employers who denied extended leave under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), it would now seem that this issue has not been established.

Della Hill worked as a counselor for a nonprofit drug abuse program in Los Angeles County - and in 2014, she was honored by that county for her work.  However, in 2015 she injured her arm and subsequently took time off to recover from the injury and also from a diagnosis of severe depression. She was scheduled to return to work on March 23, 2015 but she then asked for an extension of her leave, under state law, until April 11, 2015 - an additional 18 days.

Della Hill’s employers ignored her request and she did not return to work. Instead, she was fired from her job on March 31, 2015 without further discussion about any alternatives or possible re-employment.

As a result, Della Hill filed a suit under Californian law - which is analyzed similarly to federal anti-discrimination law - and last month the jury found in her favor, awarding her $550,000 in past and future wage loss, $1.35 million in compensatory damages, and $2.6 million in punitive damages, the latter due to the fact that the employer failed to engage her in any interactive discussion.  The jury decided that this was evidence of "malice, oppression or fraud". 

Ms Hill was represented by the Los Angeles-based employment discrimination firm Shegerian & Associates.  Carney Shegerian, trial lawyer and founder of the firm, said:

"Ms. Hill was a hard-working employee who was dedicated to her work with AADAP prior to her termination. After breaking her arm, Ms. Hill took a protected leave of absence, which was when she was diagnosed with major depression.” 

He went on to say:

“Employers have a legal obligation to make reasonable accommodations for disabled employees and to engage in a dialogue to gauge their needs. But instead of accommodating Ms. Hill after learning of her diagnosis, AADAP chose to wrongfully terminate her employment because of her disability."

Carney Shegerian added:

“Ms. Hill was not only a victim of discrimination in the workplace, but her firing was covered up under the excuse that it was a financial hardship to keep her out on a leave of absence despite such leave being unpaid.  The termination, without warning or legal justification, forever changed Ms. Hill's life.  This sizable verdict should serve as a warning to other employers that there are serious consequences for not only violating an employee's rights in the workplace but for covering up such violations based on unfounded reasons.”

The population in America is ageing – and so is its workforce.  There are now more Americans aged 65 years and older than in almost two decades. Early retirement seems to be a thing of the past, as the seniors are predicted to be the fastest growing section through 2024 and reasons for this are suggested as long life, lack of retirement savings, high housing and health care costs. 

Jen Schramm, SHRM-SCP - who is senior strategic policy advisor for labor market issues at the AARP Public Policy Institute – said:

“Several factors influence how long people stay in the labor force. Increasing longevity means that people need to finance a longer period of retirement. Many people have not saved enough money for retirement and are facing increased costs of living—particularly burdensome are housing costs and medical expenses.”

Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics was analyzed to understand which jobs older Americans were taking and how the workforce had changed since 2006.  According to a December 2017 study by SeniorLiving.org, it was found that the number of employed senior Americans had risen by 35 percent between 2011 and 2016.

The study also found that management, sales and office support were the top three occupations for the over 65s - having remained relatively the same since 2011, but with the numbers of employees having increased.  The top field for older Americans is management - employing 1.4 million seniors in 2016.

Jen Schramm said:

"Workers with higher levels of education often have more opportunities to remain in the workforce at older ages. Workers in occupations and with skills that are in high demand may have the opportunity to work longer if employers provide incentives to remain in the workforce."

The second highest number of older Americans was employed in the Sales industry - about 1.2 million.  Sales consists of cashiers; counter and rental clerks; advertising positions; insurances and financial services; travel and real estate – among others.

Production occupations employed the smallest number of older Americans and this could be due to the fact that over time, certain skills become harder to maintain due to normal ageing effects.  This limits the number of jobs an older person can perform.  However, production occupations still showed a 36 percent increase in the employment of seniors from 2011 – 2015.

Americans still see retirement as their goal but are not all in a hurry to do take it up. 

The study points to the fact that the percentage of older American women who stay at work is lower than the percentage of older American men – but the women plan to work longer than the men, according to Melody Kasulis, project manager for SeniorLiving.org.  She remarks:

“I'd speculate and say that it could be for multiple reasons like better health, length of life, desire to stay busy after their children have left the household.  The cost of living has a lot to do with the extra years people in the retirement age group are trying to put in."

Jen Schramm said:

 "AARP research has found that among people ages 65 to 74 who are currently working or looking for work, 35 percent cite the need for money as the most important factor in their decision to work. Finances are therefore likely a key factor for many women working later in life. Approximately 19 percent of people ages 65 to 74 say that the most important factor in their decision to work is that they enjoy working."

During 2018 there will be a number of important law developments – including the response to the Taylor report. 

Employers will be continuing with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) compliance and gender pay gap reporting, along with preparations for Brexit. 

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which updates data protection law across the EU, will come into effect on 25 May 2018 for all EU member states - including the UK.  Data audits and policy reviews will be carried out by employers to make certain that their data protection meets the terms of the regulations.

Organisations in the private or voluntary sector with 250 or more employees will be required to publish their first gender pay gap report by 4 April 2018 and certain public-sector employers with 250 or more employees have until 30 March 2018 to publish. Employers are required to post their reports on their own website and also on a Government website.

Reports of incorrect gender pay gap submissions have shown up the difficulties that organisations have in completing the calculations correctly.  At present, more than 350 employers have published gender pay gap reports on the Government website.

Minimum wages rise each April, and this year will increase to £7.83 for employees aged 25 and over; £7.38 for those aged 21 to 24; 18 to 20-year-olds are due to be paid £5.90; under 18’s will receive £4.20 and apprentices £3.70 with the accommodation offset increasing to £7 per day.

Workers must be at least school leaving age (last Friday in June of the school year they turn 16) to get the National Minimum Wage. They must be 25 or over to get the National Living Wage.

Contracts for payments below the minimum wage are not legally binding. The worker is still entitled to the National Minimum Wage or National Living Wage.

Workers are also entitled to the correct minimum wage if they are:

• part-time
• casual labourers - for example, someone hired for one day
• agency workers
• workers and home workers paid by the number of items they make
• apprentices
• trainees, workers on probation
• disabled workers
• agricultural workers
• foreign workers
• seafarers
• offshore workers

The weekly amount for statutory family pay rates will also increase to £145.18 on 1 April 2018 and this rate will apply to maternity pay, adoption pay,  paternity pay, shared parental pay and maternity allowance.

With regard to the Brexit preparations, the terms of the initial agreement with the EU protect the rights of EU citizens currently residing in the UK – providing employers with more confidence.  However, the agreement does not include the ability of new EU workers to work in the UK after Brexit and employers in sectors that rely on considerable inflows of European workers are still waiting for confirmation of immigration arrangements following withdrawal from the EU.

According to the Ministry of Justice, more than £1.8 million has been processed since the charging of employment tribunal fees was declared illegal.  Over 4,600 applications for refunds had been received between 20 October and 18 December 2017 and this had resulted in £1,808,310 being refunded to claimants.

In July of last year, the Supreme Court ruled that the Tribunal fees regime, where a claimant was required to pay a fee to bring their claim against an employer to Court, was unlawful as it infringed the rights of employees - in some circumstances making access to justice impossible. This followed a legal challenge by Unison.

Justice Minister, Dominic Raab told the Justice Committee that employment tribunal fee refunds were expected to be in the region of £33m, based on the fees paid since they were introduced in 2013.  It is likely the number of people entitled to a refund could reach 100,000.

It is thought that the refunds consist of the actual amount a claimant paid for the Tribunal - plus interest of 0.5% calculated from the date of the original payment to the refund date. 

Catherine Greig, a senior associate at MacRoberts, commented on the refunds already made, saying,

“The numbers are so small at the moment because of the small timeframe. However, bigger legal firms could be doing a lot of admin for claims behind the scenes and it could be a case of the floodgates opening soon because they’ll be sitting on claims.”

Nicholas Robertson, head of employment at Mayer Brown’s London office, said,

“There may have been some late claims lodged immediately after the Unison case, where claimants were prevented from suing by the potential fees and are bringing older claims now, as quickly as possible, and relying on the tribunal to permit such out of date claims to go ahead. This feature by its very nature will be short-lived.”

“I said after the outcome of the Unison case that my instinct was that there would be more tribunal claims, but it remains to be seen if tribunal claims will return to the levels before the introduction of the fees regime. My view is that they will not return to those levels.”

He added that fewer claims were being lodged by multiple claimants - which may suggest people were being advised that it was safer to bring a claim individually.

“The tribunal system’s resources were reduced to handle a reduced level of anticipated claims. So increased hearing times are not surprising even if there is only a relatively modest increase in the number of claims.”

The removal of the Tribunal fees leaves a gap in Government funding increased by the refunds that will be paid.  However, there is no indication as yet that a new fee regime will be introduced.   

However, it has been advised that employers should be vigilant in their treatment of staff to ensure fair practice is maintained across the workforce and that policies and procedures are in not only in place, but followed.      

The Recruitment & Employment Confederation (REC) survey and HIS Markit’s Report on Jobs have released figures suggesting that the number of permanent staff placements - and starting salaries - increased at the fastest pace in four months, at the end of 2017. 

They also reported that the growth of temporary placements was high with a marked decline in staff availability - the sharpest decrease reported in the last two years - contributing to steep increases in pay. Overall demand for staff remained sharp, firmly above the average seen over the 20-year survey history.

The REC/HIS Markit’s Report on Jobs provides the most comprehensive guide to the UK labour market, using original survey data provided by a panel of 400 UK recruitment consultancies.  

Figures released by Totaljobs on their website also reflected the recruitment boom, suggesting that there had been an increase of 20% in the number of jobs advertised in the first week of 2018 compared to the same period in 2016.

On a regional basis, the Midlands continued to show the fastest increase in permanent placements at the end of the year and the least rate of growth was seen in London - but London registered the fastest increase in temp billings of all five monitored UK regions in December. Expansion was also sharp elsewhere.

December data pointed to rising demand for staff, both in the private and public sector, although growth remained sharper for the private sector.

This information, however, contrasts with the official statistics from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) which revealed that there had been a 2% overall fall in employment, together with 0.2% fall in real weekly earnings, including bonuses.

Charles Cotton – reward adviser at the CIPD – stated:

“The REC survey is focusing specifically on recruitment and individuals being placed in organisations but is not necessarily looking at those who are leaving or being made redundant. The broader picture, including labour market issues, must be taken into consideration to reach a balanced view of what is really happening in the recruitment market.”

REC chief executive Kevin Green said:

“Employers, as a response to these candidate shortages, are offering increased starting salaries to attract staff – but while this has been the case for some time, it isn’t translating into significant wage growth across the economy yet,”

Charles Cotton warned that increases in starting salary may not be good for employees in the longer term:

“Organisations are increasing starting salaries to get people through the door but, once they are in there, then this does not improve particularly fast, and if they have been appointed to the top of their pay range they may not see much of a pay rise at all.”  

He added:

“That is an issue we called out last month in the CIPD’s latest reward management survey, which could throw up a number of employee relations issues in the longer term. Employers should always seek to confirm how long and enduring the recruitment surge will be before taking people on to permanent contracts.”

“Whether taking on new staff permanently or shifting existing employees from temporary to permanent contracts, it’s important to be creative and consider your working culture, what people are being paid, and non-financial benefits that could put you ahead in terms of recruitment, as well as ensuring you don’t undersell or oversell for the job you advertise.”

Kevin Green, REC Chief Executive says:

“Early in the New Year, people often think about changing jobs, so employers are going to have to think carefully about how they can both retain existing capabilities and find the new hires they need as competition for people intensifies. Bosses should consider going to wider talent pools and to be inventive about how to improve their employer brand and make themselves an even more attractive place to work.”

The Department of Health and Human Services and other executive departments and agencies have been given the authority and discretion to roll back certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) after President Trump signed an executive order.

As Congress had tasked the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with the enforcement of several key components of ACA - including the individual mandate, it was unclear as to what that actually meant.  

However, it appears that the IRS - despite warnings to employers that it would not be giving extensions or penalty relief - will not be enforcing the mandate and the IRS has said that they will be extending the deadline for distributing Forms 1095-B and 1095-C to individuals by 30 days to March 2, 2018.  The date for filing Forms 1094-B and 1094-C (and Forms 1095) with IRS has not been extended and remains at February 28, 2018 for paper forms and April 2, 2018 for electronic filing.

In addition to extending the deadline, the IRS will once again offer penalty relief if a company can show that it has made good-faith efforts at complying with the demands of ACA reporting, such as gathering necessary data and transmitting it to a third-party to prepare required reports; testing the ability to transmit data to the IRS and taking steps to ensure compliance for the 2018 tax year.

At the end of 2017, the IRS announced it would begin assessing employer mandates penalties on companies for their 2015 reporting but now the IRS has revealed the specific letter it will issue, when the letter will be issued; the time frame for which the letters apply and an official sample of the letter it will be using.

If it is determined that an applicable large employer company did not fulfill the ACA’s offer of coverage rules or had one or more of its full-time employees receive a premium tax credit for at least one month in 2015 - the IRS will issue a letter. 

A response to the letter will be required by the date shown on the letter - which is usually 30 days from the date of issue.

Employers with at least one employee or more are required to conspicuously show Labor Law posters in an area frequented by all employees – for example, locations could include designated bulletin boards in the break room, above time clocks, in the employee lounge or in a cafeteria or a lunch room.

Failure to fulfil the posting requirements can result in a steep fine. Most federal, state and local penalties range from $500 to $10,000 per offense; however, agencies retain discretion about whether to assess or reduce such statutory penalties but penalties may also be escalated after the first offense.

The new year of 2018 brings in new compliance standards – meaning that employers will have to update their posters.  The new information required concerns federal and state minimum wages, safety at work and health regulations.  However, only some employers are required to display some of the posters – for example the Family and Medical Leave Act needs to be shown by employers of over 50 workers and small businesses would not be subject to the Act's posting requirements.

To assist employers, the Department Of Labor can provide electronic copies of the required posters and some of the posters are available in languages other than English.

Franklin Wolf, an attorney with Fisher Phillips in Chicago, stated: “Employers should not be shy about conferring with counsel about any updates in the law.”  He added: “Laws applicable to employers may change at a rapid pace and without much mainstream news coverage. This is particularly true for state and local laws."

Aaron Warshaw, an attorney with Ogletree Deakins in New York City, said: “Consulting with counsel may lead to a more detailed compliance discussion. For example, you may start a call asking about the poster requirements under New York state law, but the attorney may say, 'Hey, by the way …,' and you end up talking about the recently enacted New York City Fair Workweek Law."

He added, “Whenever a client asks me to handle an onsite inspection by a government agency, one of the first steps I take is examine the site's workplace posters". He continued "If a government investigator sees that the employer has not updated its EEO and wage and hour posters since the Bush administration, then he or she may reasonably conclude that the employer's general employment practices have not been updated either."

In a survey of 2,187 CEOs and business leaders, the leadership consulting firm of Zenger Folkman identified "establishing stretch goals" as the No.1 competency gap among HR leaders.  These leaders are spread across hundreds of different organizations with 68% located in the US, 11% in Asia, 8% in Europe, 7% in Latin America, 4% in Canada, and 1% in Africa.

Steve Rice, CHRO of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in Seattle, said:

“HR leaders can be overly risk averse to their own detriment. Fear drives mediocrity. It's necessary to take risks to move forward.”

After comparing an appraisal of leaders in the HR function with those of leaders in other functions, the data suggests that the typical HR leader is seen as six percentile points below average. HR seems to have become every manager and employee’s favorite corporate punch bag, competing with IT for the title of the most-irritating function.  

The data was analyzed in two different ways. The results for the 2,187 HR leaders in the dataset was compared with those of 29,026 leaders in other functions. A few key skills that were common strengths of those in HR and also some that appeared as weaknesses were identified.

Generally speaking, one of the most positive areas for HR leaders was that they were very concerned about developing other staff. This separated them from leaders in other functions, who did not score highly on this skill. They also rated positively on providing coaching, acting as a mentor and giving feedback in a helpful way.  The persons taking the survey were also asked to indicate the importance of each competency measured - they rated this skill eleventh of 16 for HR leaders. Therefore it could be that developing others is not taken as seriously as other competencies that are highly valued by the other functional leaders.

Areas where HR leaders scored higher than leaders in other functions were in building positive relationships, role modelling and having functional knowledge and expertise.

When comparing HR leaders to all other leaders they were not rated positively on their ability to understand the needs and concerns of customers. The function of HR appears to focus on internal problems - and the apparent lack of understanding of the external environment causes others to view some HR leaders as not in touch with the issues facing the organization.

Other weaknesses pinpointed were their inability to view the larger picture, focusing instead on the day-to-day issues and a general lack of speed and urgency to respond and react quickly to problems.

The survey did show, however, that HR leaders were among some of the best leaders in the world.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that employers must consult unions when changing employees’ terms and conditions when they are signed up to collective bargaining.

The EAT upheld a decision made by the Sheffield Employment Tribunal to compensate employees of Kostal UK – an electronics manufacturer – for the breaching of collective bargaining rules. The employees were members of the trade union Unite.  It was found that the company had made unlawful inducements to the employees to sign a new contract without consulting with the union and ruled that it must pay its employees compensation of £3,800 for each unlawful inducement made.

Eat judge Mrs Justice Simler stated that section 145b of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992 seeks to prevent employers “going over the heads of the union with direct offers in order to achieve the result that one or more terms will not be determined by collective agreement with the union if the offers are accepted”.

The claims resulted from a failed agreement between Kostal and Unite, following a proposal for a 2% increase in basic pay, plus an additional 2% for those earning less than £20,000 – together with a Christmas bonus payable during the 2015 festive season.  In addition, Kostal sought a sick pay and Sunday overtime reduction for new employees and consolidation of the two 15-minute breaks currently in operation, into one 30-minute break.

In December 2015, Kostal wrote to employees asking that they sign a new contract containing the new terms and conditions or risk losing their Christmas bonus.  Those who did not accept the offer were again urged to do so in January 2016.  The union was not aware of this contact and subsequently – on behalf of the employees – sued Kostal for compensation, which they won.

Kostal appealed and argued that it had not intended to encourage employees out of collective bargaining but to inform them that there was a time limit on the offer of the Christmas bonus.  Agreement was eventually reached on pay and amended terms and conditions, but by then the offer of the Christmas bonus was no longer applicable.

In her judgement, Mrs Justice Simler said that the law prohibited offers made to workers who are members of a recognised trade union – or one seeking recognition by their employer – if acceptance of the offer would have a prohibited result and the sole or main purpose in making the offers is to achieve that result. The prohibited result is that the workers’ terms of employment, or any of those terms, “will not, or will no longer, be determined by collective agreement negotiated by or on behalf of the union”.  She also quoted a government review of the law that confirmed the law should explicitly prohibit inducements or bribes being made to trade union members to forego union rights.

Ranjit Dhindsa, Partner and head of the employment, pensions and immigration team at Fieldfisher stated:

“That means employers or unions cannot go behind the veil of collective terms by going directly to employees when it suits them. A lot of employers get frustrated with collective bargaining, as seen here when Kostal couldn’t come to a pay agreement with its union.”

She added:

“….a lot of employers may have tried this tactic and got away with it, but they can’t now assume that they will”.  

Howard Beckett, assistant general secretary for legal services at Unite, said:

“The decision confirmed employers cannot dip in and out of collective bargaining when it suits their purposes and this is key to protecting workers and trade unions from underhand employer tactics.”

A forecast issued during December 2017 by the Hay Group division of Korn Ferry shows that salaries are to rise by only 1.5% globally, when adjusted for inflation. This is considerably down on 2017’s prediction of 2.3% and 2016’s prediction of 2.5%.

The figures were calculated using Korn Ferry’s pay database and according to their website, contains data from more than 20 million job holders in 25,000 organizations, across more than 110 countries. Using predicted salary increases for 2018 as forecasted by global HR departments and comparing them to predictions made at this time last year regarding 2017, it also takes into account 2018 inflation data from the Economist Intelligence Unit.

In the US, an average increase of 2.8% is predicted – this is about the same as last year. However, when adjusted for inflation (expected to be 2% in 2018) the real wage increase is only around 0.9% - which is down from 1.9% last year.

Western Europe, which incorporates the UK, fairs less well with an average increase of 2.3% predicted and the inflation-adjusted real wage giving an increase of only 0.9%.

Bob Wesselkamper, who is Global Head of Rewards and Benefits Solutions at Korn Ferry stated:

"With inflation rising in most parts of the world, we're seeing a cut in real wage increases across the globe."

He added:

"On average, employees are not seeing the same real pay growth they did even one year ago."

According to Government data, in the 3 months since Tribunal fees were abolished in July, the number of claims have risen by 66 percent – one of the strongest indicators that introducing fees for Employment Tribunals was discouraging employees from making claims.

Following a Supreme Court ruling that said the Government was acting unlawfully to introduce them, the Ministry of Justice “took immediate steps” to stop charging fees for tribunals and also rolled out a fee refund scheme for claimants who had paid fees between 2013 and 2017. Individuals who paid tribunal fees between these dates can apply to be reimbursed and it is estimated that 100,000 claims are eligible for a refund, which could cost up to £27m.

The newly released statistics show that the number of single claims for individual grievances such as unfair or wrongful dismissal increased dramatically, with claims for unlawful deductions from wages, for example, now re-emerging from a low of 549 in July 2017 to a high of 2926 claims in August 2017. It is thought that many workers found the cost of bringing a claim for something such as underpaid holiday often exceeded the amount being disputed and therefore did not proceed.

However, whilst single claims appear to be on the increase, multiple tribunal claims fell to 23,297 which is a decrease of 15 per cent over the same period as last year. Experts have reasoned that this could be because during the period when fees were charged, it was cheaper to work as a group, rather than bring a single claim, which would seem to be borne out by the recent rise in single claims.

Obviously these figures only reflect the very recent trend and experts have said that more figures would be needed before they could tell whether this is the new norm.

In order to understand how employers can improve engagement and retention of employees, FSG - together with Hart Research Associates - surveyed over 1,200 entry-level, hourly workers between the ages of 17 and 24 years of age.   Dozens of companies were also interviewed to find out how they have improved staff retention.

The young people that were surveyed worked in a wide range of jobs, which included health care, manufacturing, retail, and hospitality.  More than half of these 1,200 young people working in entry-level jobs said that was their intention to leave in less than a year. Less than a quarter stated that they were highly satisfied with their job.

As turnover can cost up to 200% of an employee's annual salary, depending on what their role is, it can therefore cost businesses billions of dollars each year.  

Employers wanting to improve retention were advised of key ways this could be achieved - by improving manager training; diversity and inclusion and scheduling – although it was found that some employers are already improving in these areas.

Job satisfaction amongst the young people surveyed was found, in a large part, to be determined by how they perceived the way their manager treated them, with being treated fairly and with respect often more important than income. Nearly 50% of the women and 40% of the men surveyed said that they had struggled at work because they felt they were treated unfairly by their manager and 32% said they had previously lost a job due to unfair or disrespectful treatment. 

HMSHost - the largest provider of food and beverage services for travelers in North America - used its Engagement Training Program to help frontline managers provide authentic recognition to its employees, to listen and solve problems and deliver specific, actionable feedback to their teams. Where it tested this training, it received enthusiastic feedback from managers and associates and saw early improvements in associate engagement and retention.

Research showed that young people are more than twice as likely to stay in their employment for more than a year if they see the job as a career - or a stepping stone to a career. However, only 35% of young people surveyed described their current employment in those terms. It was suggested that employers could offer meaningful opportunities for professional growth within the company.

In addition, employers can support educational achievement for young people, as 45% of those surveyed wanted to go to college and the responses indicated that those who enrolled in school whilst working are much more likely to stay in their current jobs.

Starbucks recently expanded its College Achievement Plan - offering free tuition for online classes and removing cost, knowledge and schedule barriers for employees. Early results show that the changes are paying off, as employees enrolled in the plan are being retained twice as long and promoted four times as often as employees not participating in the program.

Employers could also create a more diverse and inclusive work environment as there is clear evidence that doing so is good for business. For example, Gap Inc. is a leader in this area, creating a program called This Way Ahead for teens and young adults facing barriers to employment.  Sixty five percent of its participants are women, 98% people of color and all are from low-income backgrounds. After training and a 10-week paid internship, 75% of This Way Ahead graduates received offers of employment at Gap, Old Navy and Banana Republic stores. Gap Inc found it to be an effective talent strategy and the retention rate for these employees is double that of their peers. Their performance ratings are on par with their peers and graduates have higher-than-average engagement scores.

Of the youths surveyed, 83% said they would be more likely to stay in their current job if they had more control over their work schedules. Predictability and flexibility were most important - they want to know, in advance, the days and times they are going to work and they also want their managers to be flexible when unexpected events such as sickness or transportation challenges, arise outside of work.

Young people value good benefits and wages, however research showed that whilst they value benefits like overtime pay, a 401k retirement-savings plan and paid time off, the most important benefit by far is health insurance. That is why companies like UPS, Lowes, REI, and Starbucks are in high demand - they all offer some form of health insurance for part-time, hourly employees.

More than 50% of the youths surveyed wanted to more work hours and research suggested that offering existing workers additional hours, rather than hiring new workers, may be one way to save on costs and improve employee satisfaction.

There is also a business case for raising wages. In 2014, IKEA decided to raise its minimum wage, which led to a 5% improvement in retention in less than six months. It was so successful from a business perspective that IKEA raised wages again in 2015. Other low-cost retailers, from Costco to Trader Joe's, have also shown that raising wages can create a competitive advantage.

Research finds that there is a clear business case for putting these ideas into practise and employers who are leading the field in these areas are surpassing industry averages when it comes to retention and employee engagement. This not only makes them better places for young people to work but it also makes them stronger businesses.

According to APA’s 2017 Work and Well-Being survey - released by the American Psychological Association - half of American workers (50 percent) say that in the last year they have been affected by; are currently being affected by; or expect to be affected by organizational changes.  The survey was conducted online by Harris Poll among more than 1,500 American adults who were employed full time, part time or self-employed.

The survey findings show that workplace changes may affect employees’ job attitudes and experiences.  Staff who reported being affected by organizational change (71 percent) currently - or within the past year - reported lower levels of job satisfaction compared with employees who reported no recent, current or anticipated changes (81 percent).

Also, Americans who reported recent or current change (34 percent) were almost three times more likely to say they have no trust in their employer (12 percent) and more than three times as likely to say that they intend to seek new employment within the next year (46 percent) compared with those who suffered no recent, current or anticipated change.

David W Ballard, PsyD, MBA – head of APA’s Center for Organizational Excellence, states,

“Change is inevitable in organizations, and when it happens, leadership often underestimates the impact those changes have on employees. If they damage their relationship with employees, ratchet up stress levels and create a climate of negativity and cynicism in the process, managers can wind up undermining the very change efforts they’re trying to promote.”

Other findings of the survey are:

• 78 percent of U.S. workers reported average or better levels of work engagement - as characterized by high levels of energy - when being strongly involved in their work and feeling happily engrossed in what they do.
• 22 percent reported low or very low levels of engagement at work, but 30 percent of workers who felt they were treated fairly by their employers were more than five times as likely to report high or very high levels of work engagement, compared with 7 percent of employees who felt unfairly treated.
• Although 71 percent of employed adults felt that their organization treats them fairly, 21 percent said they did not trust their employer.
• Employees who had no trust in their employer (70 percent) were likely to say that they were tense and stressed at work – and indicated that they intended to look for a new job within the next year - compared with 23 percent who trust their employer.  

Trust and engagement play important roles in the workplace.  In predicting well-being, engagement and trust accounted for 53 percent of the variance. Employees reported having more trust in their organizations when their contributions are recognized and opportunities for involvement are provided. 

Employees also experienced higher engagement when they had more positive perceptions of their employer’s involvement, growth and development and health and safety practices.

 “For organizations to successfully navigate turbulent times, they need resilient employees who can adapt to change,” David W Ballard said. “Disillusioned workers who are frustrated with change efforts, however, may begin to question leaders’ motives and resist further changes. To build trust and engagement, employers need to focus on building a psychologically healthy workplace where employees are actively involved in shaping the future and confident in their ability to succeed.”

The CIPD - the professional body for HR and people development - have published new research showing the value of strength-based performance conversations.  It shows that line managers can improve their staff performances by focusing on their strengths and not their weaknesses.

This method endeavours to move away from a ‘shortfall’ approach, which is focused on identifying and fixing the weaknesses of team members; analysing what is wrong and deciding how that can be avoided.

Jonny Gifford, Senior Research Adviser for organisational behaviour at the CIPD, said:

“The strengths-based approach marks a big shift in mind-set for many, if not most of us. Our default mode when looking for improvements tends to be deficit-oriented – we hone in on what’s gone wrong and consider how we can avoid that in the future. There will always be cases where it’s imperative to do this, but our research shows the benefit of making the norm in performance conversations to reflect instead on what worked well, why, and how it can be replicated. The research demonstrated that by focusing on the positives and building on what works, we can actually boost employee performance and help with the learning and development of our teams.”

The research done by the CIPD concentrated on workplace involvements in three government organisations:

• Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
• The National Offender Management Service (now called Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service - or HMPPS)
• The Valuation Office Agency (VOA), as well as work with the Civil Service Employee Policy team.

The study involved before-and-after measures comparing control groups who were not given any training or support, with treatment groups who attended a training workshop on leading strengths-based performance conversations.

In the Valuation Office Agency there were added interventions, including a change in HR policy on performance management.

After the study, it was found from employee feedback that there was a marked improvement in the usefulness of performance conversations when they were focused on strengths rather than weaknesses – 9.7% of employees agreed with the statement, “My meetings with my line manager help me learn and develop as a professional”.  It was also found that 7.4% agreed with the statement, “My meetings with my line manager help to improve my performance”.

In the civil service, it was shown that employee performance improves with simple training which focuses on building strengths and not dealing with weaknesses.  It is also possible to increase the results with changes to HR policy and further training for managers.

The published report also shows how robust and useful research can be conducted into people management practices.  HR and people development needs more research of this nature. 

Andrew Kean, Deputy Director of Civil Service Employee Policy, said:

“In the Civil Service, we know that the quality of the performance conversation between the manager and their employee is fundamental to any good performance management approach. So we are delighted that this research, which has centred on the nature and quality of performance conversations, has provided such clear results. In particular, that a simple training intervention focused on building strengths instead of fixing weaknesses positively influences the performance conversations that take place between managers and their staff.” 

David Ede, Director of People and Organisational Development at the Valuation Office Agency, stated:

“It has been a really useful experience to have the CIPD research running alongside our own internal performance management pilot. This has allowed for a comparison between a holistic approach to performance management (complete policy change and cultural shift to coaching conversations) and a more discrete strengths-based intervention where the policy has remained unchanged. VOA has been doing its own internal evaluation of our pilot and worked alongside the CIPD to feed into their research.” 

Paycor, a Human Capital Management company, have released the results of a survey they have conducted about the present and the future of HR.

The nationwide study - conducted by Harris Poll - surveyed 500 HR professionals and C-suite executives and was undertaken to understand how HR leaders in small and medium businesses saw the future of the industry in five years and how they could prepare for changes.

Approximately half of the HR and business leaders who were surveyed believe that many core HR functions will be automated by 2022.  Whilst being optimistic about their businesses in 2018, 45 percent are apprehensive about recruiting and retention of staff.  The two major concerns they have are finding the right people for the job and then keeping them motivated.

The survey also reveals that small and medium size businesses will focus more on using information that can be interpreted quickly and used to drive business decisions and help solve challenges without widespread vetting from the leadership.

Experts stated that Initially HR technology was built to guarantee conformity - but that is rapidly changing.

Karen Crone, Chief HR Officer of Paycor stated:

"Most people embark on a career in HR to make a difference, but many get stuck in the administration.”  She added "HR technology wasn't built to make HR's job easier or to give HR time back to focus on people. Over the next five years, look for the most successful teams to embrace technology and focus more on performance."

She added: "Armed with the tools to add more strategic value, HR leaders will be able to evangelize a holistic approach to the entire employee life cycle—from hiring and on-boarding through career development, learning and training—so they can spend less time on the administrative work that has kept HR in a box and more time enhancing their company's people power."

According to the survey, 82 percent of respondents say ‘soft skills’ will become more important as HR becomes less administrative and 47 percent expect their roles to become more data-driven strategic. By 2022, HR professionals predict that their teams will have three top priorities - training and development; employee morale and employee retention.

Stacey Browning, President of Paycor stated:

"As technology continues to disrupt the HR status quo in ways big and small, it's critical that small to midsize business HR professionals are able to minimize their focus on administrative tasks and achieve a more strategic position in their organizations."

The survey report indicates that HR leaders are gearing up for the challenge - but many HR leaders will find it difficult to invest in the necessary tools to assess data as they could be obstructed by cost, especially if they are unable to power new technologies - and new systems are unaffordable.

Karen Crone stated:

“HR leaders should start small……they do not necessarily need a system to look at data in new ways. Take attrition data, for example. We often look at the monthly rate or voluntary versus involuntary, but what about other factors?”

She added, “Just by stringing together data that is seemingly unrelated, you might find a meaningful pattern for your business."

This month, Judge William L Witham Jr of the Delaware Superior Court granted a request to block the testimony of a doctor appearing as an expert witness in a medical malpractice case.

The plaintiff, Amanda Norman, filed the lawsuit against Dr. Christine Maynard and the clinic All About Women.  She claimed that, while performing a diagnostic laparoscopy on Amanda Norman in October 2013, Dr. Maynard perforated the plaintiff’s bladder.  The mistake was not realized prior to completing the procedure – which led to further surgery and hospitalization for Amanda Norman.

The defendants sought to exclude evidence and testimony concerning their write-off and payment of medical expenses; limit the testimony of Dr. Kenneth Woo; exclude apologies; exclude evidence of other injuries and exclude the evidence of Dr. Jeffrey Soffer – the expert witness.

Resident Judge William L. Witham determined that there was no evidence that Amanda Norman’s expert witness - Dr. Soffer - had based his definition of the standard of care on information broadly accepted within the medical community. Therefore, the judge granted Dr. Christine Maynard - and her clinic All About Women - their request to exclude his testimony.

The order states that Dr. Soffer was offering expert testimony for the plaintiff to support the argument that Dr. Maynard had violated the standard of care while performing the surgery on Amanda Norman. The defendants argued that Dr. Soffer’s testimony lacked foundation - being based only on the fact that the bladder injury occurred - and that he had failed to explain in which way Dr. Maynard’s actions did not comply with the standard of care.

The decision states, “In this case, Amanda Norman has failed to meet her burden because no evidence has been presented that Dr. Soffer’s opinion is ‘based on information reasonably relied upon by experts’ in his field.  Therefore, the court must exclude Dr. Soffer’s testimony.”

Dr. Christine Maynard and the clinic had argued that Dr. Soffer’s testimony was only reliant on the fact that Amanda Norman’s bladder had been injured but did not elaborate on what would have been required of Dr. Maynard to abide by the standard of care. They added that he had failed to provide any explanation as to how he reached his standard of care opinions. 

Conversely, Amanda Norman argued that Dr. Soffer’s testimony indicates that a doctor exercising care and diligence would not injure a patient during a diagnostic laparoscopy.  She also stated that the evidence pinpointed specific deficiencies in Dr. Maynard’s surgical procedure.

In considering the argument, the court used a five-step test set out in the U.S. Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals to determine the admissibility of the expert testimony.

The order states that to be allowed –

• the witness must be qualified as an expert:
• the evidence must be relevant
• the opinion must be based upon information that other experts in the field rely upon
• the testimony must help the court understand the facts of an issue
• it must not create unfair prejudice

The court found that Dr. Soffer’s testimony was inadmissible because it failed on the third point of the test.

According to Judge Witham’s decision, Amanda Norman had not shown that Dr. Soffer’s opinion was based on information that experts rely upon. In fact, he had stated himself that he did not rely on any publications in reaching his conclusion and that it was based on his own knowledge.

Judge Witham wrote, “This contention in no way alludes to whether his analysis of the facts in this case is consistent with other experts in his field.  Therefore, the court must exclude Dr. Soffer’s testimony.”

The Court issued the decision on November 16.

The Ministry of Justice has announced that applications for refunds of Employment Tribunal or Employment Appeal Tribunal fees, will now be processed.

Employment Tribunal fees that were charged between July 2013 and July 2017 will be considered for refunds, after the Supreme Court found, on 26th July 2017, that the Employment Tribunal fee system was unlawful. As the rule of law requires people to have access to the Courts unless Parliament has clearly said otherwise, the introduction of fees was found to have obstructed access to justice. A review of the impact of the fees appeared to support this, as it showed there had been a 70 per cent drop in the number of cases brought in the Employment Tribunal since fees were first introduced.

After the ruling, Justice Minister Dominic Raab stated: "The Supreme Court recognised the important role fees can play, but ruled that we have not struck the right balance in this case.”

Initially, there was a four week trial phase before the scheme was fully rolled out, where around 1,000 people were contacted by the Government and offered the chance to apply for reimbursements. It has been estimated that 100,000 claims could be eligible for refunds now the scheme is fully open.

Applicants can apply for a reimbursement through the gov.uk website but if an employer was ordered by the Tribunal to reimburse a fee paid by the Claimant - and the employer can prove they did so - the employer instead of the Claimant can reclaim the fee. In addition to being refunded their original fee, successful applicants will also be paid 0.5 per cent interest, which will be calculated from the date of the original payment up until the refund date.

It has been reported that since the ruling, the number of Employment Tribunal claims is beginning to increase. However, it is conceivable that fees may be brought into force again in the future, as it was only found that the fee system from July 2013 was unlawful, not that any type of fee system is. This was highlighted by the Lord Chancellor David Lidington during a justice select committee recently, when he verified that the Government were intending to charge in the future

Only 24% of employers in the private sector say they are under pressure - to any degree - from the majority of their workforce to raise wages, whilst almost four in ten private sector firms say they face no pressure at all.   These are findings of the latest quarterly CIPD/The Adecco Group Labour Market Outlook survey conducted on more than 1,000 HR professional and decision makers.    

However, a slightly higher proportion of private sector employers state that, particularly among high and middle-skilled jobs, there is either some or significant pay pressure to raise wages for certain roles.  23% of private sector employers stated that the reason for the lack of pressure to raise wages is the fact that workers recognise that the business cannot afford more generous pay increases - which underlines the productivity challenge facing many firms.       

In the public sector almost three-fifths of the organisations state that they are under pressure, to some extent, to raise wages for the majority of their employees - which may partly reflect the recent debate about scrapping the public sector pay cap.  In addition, 25% of public sector organisations say that they are under some or significant pressure to raise wages for certain roles. 

The survey also suggested that a noteworthy majority of employers do not face any significant difficulty accessing the skills they require.  Only 13% of all current private sector vacancies are skill-shortage vacancies and only 29% of all employers with a vacancy report that it is from skills shortages.  This suggests that any pay pressure is not likely to come from a lack of skills in the current labour market. 

Employers report that average basic pay increases are expected to reach 2%, which is higher than the previous quarter’s figure of 1% - but is still in line with official data that shows wage growth as being between 1.8 and 2.2% over the past six months. 

The survey also shows that - consistent with the trend over recent years, the average basic pay increase expectations are higher in the private sector (2%) than in the public (1%) and voluntary (1.5%) sectors.  However, whilst overall pay pressure is quiet in the private sector, some parts are under more pressure - for example, 38% of construction employers say they are under some or significant pressure to increase earnings for the majority of the workers.

Gerwyn Davies, CIPD Senior Labour Market Analyst, states, “This survey provides further evidence that productivity has a far more significant bearing on pay growth than the tightness of the labour market. Over time we might expect low unemployment levels to lead to increased pressure on pay, as the Bank of England has predicted. However, it’s the UK’s ongoing poor productivity growth that’s currently preventing employers from paying more, not their inability to find or retain staff. This is why the Chancellor in this month’s Budget has to prioritise investments that will support workplace productivity improvements - for example, investing in support for small firms and skills development initiatives that can help to drive productivity gains over time.

In terms of employment, despite the evident optimism in this quarter’s survey, it remains likely that the sharp increase in the number of people in work over the past year will ease during the course of 2018. This is due in part to the impact of continued slower economic growth, the uncertainties associated with Brexit and the prospect of further interest rate rises. However, employment prospects for the manufacturing sector look bright, perhaps buoyed by the benefit of a weaker currency and the strength of global demand.”

Travel specialists Opodo recently conducted new independent research which reveals that British employees are trailing behind those from other countries across Europe and the USA when it comes to flexible working hours and taking a sabbatical.

Although 65% of British employees said that they would consider taking a sabbatical, it appeared that they would not actually take the extended break - risking burn-out in the process.

The research showed that, despite UK employees being amongst the Europeans most likely to be allowed the extended leave by their companies, more than half stated that it would be hard to return to work after taking a sabbatical.  One in five of those polled in the UK feel that it would harm their career prospects with their current employer, compared to almost two-thirds of people in Spain who believe that taking extended leave will help them in the future in terms of employability.   More than half of the people in Germany said the same, whilst 49 per cent of people working in France also believe sabbaticals can help with future employment.

The major factors that influence interest in sabbaticals include stress in the workplace, which was cited by 50% of those polled; mental health - 43% and physical health - 32%. 

The research suggests that an extended break from work would actually be useful for many, despite the British employees being least likely of all the nations surveyed to return refreshed from their summer holiday. 

A spokesperson for Opodo stated:

“It is all too easy to become overwhelmed by the stress of working life, particularly now we are working longer hours until later in life. 

Given the advancements in modern technology, many now also have their work emails and calendar synced to their phone, meaning we’re no longer simply working 9-5 but are clocked on 24/7.

Taking a sabbatical can be a great release valve for this stress and offer the opportunity to do something you’ve always wanted, whether that’s going travelling, learning a new language or skill or just taking some time off to focus on yourself.”

Worldwide, it seems that reducing stress and improving health are the main factors behind employees needing to have a sabbatical. British employees are the most likely to want to go it alone and are only half as likely as those in the rest of the world to use their leave as an opportunity to learn a new language.

The study shows that just 30% of British workers feel they have a good work/life balance - less than the worldwide average of more than 34% of people surveyed. The countries that rated themselves with having the best ratio of work and personal life are Portugal with 43% and the USA with 41%.   Germany has the least with 27%. 

Although UK employers were rated among the most generous of the nations polled when it comes to leave - with more employees here saying they had a generous holiday allowance - the nation that offers the most flexible working options is Spain, followed by the USA and Germany.  And, when it comes to other forms of flexible working benefits that can help to improve employee welfare, the study reveals that British companies are lagging behind businesses in other countries.

The Ninth Circuit has upheld a district court’s denial of Glassdoor, Inc.’s motion to quash a grand jury subpoena requiring it to disclose identifying information about eight anonymous reviewers.  Rejecting Glassdoor’s First Amendment challenge, the appeals court found that the company failed to allege - or to provide evidence - that the government’s investigation of the employer for fraud was conducted in bad faith.

Glassdoor operates a website where employers promote their companies to potential employees.   Employees post reviews of what it is like to work at their companies and in these reviews - which are anonymous - employees rate employers in a variety of categories.  These categories include interviewing practices, salaries and workplace environment.  

An employment attorney - Jadzia Butler of Covington and Burling in Washington D.C. - has stated that a recent court order requiring Glassdoor to reveal the identities of eight users of the website, may have an effect on internet free speech.  She says that it is “particularly concerning” if a subpoena can compromise the anonymity of the internet users and added, “Some employees use the platform to report managers' or co-workers' problematic behavior. Without their identities being kept confidential, they may be less likely to do so. That's bad for the employer, who could have been made aware of things it did not know were happening.”

Although the reviews are anonymous, users have to provide their email addresses to Glassdoor in order to post on the website and they are warned that such information may have to be disclosed if required to do so by law.  Glassdoor warns that they “will disclose data if we believe in good faith that such disclosure is necessary . . . to comply with relevant laws or to respond to subpoenas or warrants or legal process served on us.” 

Their Terms of Use state that Glassdoor reserve the right “….to take appropriate action to protect the anonymity of users against the enforcement of subpoenas or other information requests”. 

Glassdoor was attempting to do that, despite an on-going federal criminal investigation where anonymous reviews were posted about an unspecified federal contractor.  These reviews criticized the company's management and business practices – with one anonymous review stating that the company "manipulates the system to make money unethically off of veterans/VA.”

Glassdoor raised First Amendment concerns and the government agreed to limit its request for reviewer details to just eight example reviews, in order to “contact those reviewers as third party witnesses to certain business practices relevant to the investigation.” 

However, the court stated that, "The speakers whose identities the government seeks may well be witnesses to this criminal activity, perhaps even participants in it.”

Jadzia Butler said that the employees are not implicated in a crime and are mere witnesses. She stated, "They did not ask to be dragged into this legal process. Now they and those who hear about their story will think twice about expressing themselves in this way."

Mark Kluger, an attorney with Kluger Healey in Florham Park, N.J. said, "Since most employees who post on Glassdoor probably don't work for criminal enterprises or those that are targets of FBI investigations, the average contributor likely has nothing to worry about."

An attorney with Foley & Lardner in Miami - Mark Neuberger - agreed, "This subpoena is not and should not be the end of sites like Glassdoor or other ones where people can comment about their doctors, restaurants or anything else."

However, Charles Krugel - an attorney in Chicago - stated that, "This decision should make employees think twice about using Glassdoor when employees accuse their employer of serious criminal misconduct."

In a statement Glassdoor said, "We are disappointed in the 9th Circuit's decision to deny our appeal to protect the identities of eight Glassdoor users whose contact information was being sought in connection to a federal criminal investigation linked to alleged fraud, waste and abuse of federal funds."

It added, "Glassdoor vigorously fights our users' First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, including sharing opinions online about their workplaces anonymously."

Generation Z - those born from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s - are now entering the workforce and according to a new poll, they will be difficult to manage, hard to communicate with and will not have a particularly strong work ethic. 

APPrise Mobile, a mobile employee communications and engagement solution,  has released a national survey of workplace managers (which relied on a Google Consumer Survey) showing that more than a third believe that managing employees from Generation Z will prove more difficult than the management of previous generations. So far, Generation Z has not impressed their more experienced co-workers according to APPrise Mobile.

More than a quarter of workplace managers anticipate having major communications and training-related challenges.  Twenty six percent believe that it will be more difficult to communicate with employees from Generation Z; 29 percent expect it will be more difficult to train them compared to older generations and 1 in 10 managers (16 percent) also expect Generation Z to negatively impact their company culture. 

Two percent of respondents feel that phone calls will be an effective way to communicate with Generation Z - however, the authors of the report wrote that ‘connecting over the phone could become a thing of the past’.

Jeff Corbin, founder and CEO of APPrise Mobile said, "To the extent Millennials are associated with 'entitlement,' there probably is a level of fear that Generation Z will turn out worse.  The farther away in age, the greater the likelihood that they (the managers) believe they won't be able to relate to Generation Z."   He went on to say that as most of Generation Z grew up with a mobile device in their hands, "there is a tendency and expectation of instantaneous gratification. They want the answers now. They are all about tweets and short responses. As a result, many Generation Zers are going to be too quick to respond rather than deliberate and thoughtful……the concept of professionalism, formality and quality in communications may be a foreign one to many in Generation Z, which could be problematic to older generations."

Bruce Tulgan, founder of New Haven, Connecticut based consultancy Rainmaker Thinking, agreed that fears about Generation Z may not be unfounded.  He said that his own research shows that managers’ biggest worry is that Generation Z will view jobs as short-term transactional relationships and that they will demand a great deal of flexibility and responsibility early in their working lives. 

He stated, "It may be attributable to being raised by helicopter parents who have provided more guidance, direction, support and coaching to young people than any generation in history. Thus, these young people often have unrealistic expectations about where they stand in relation to others and what they can hope to achieve and receive in the first years of employment. They aren't going to want to take it slowly, get a feel for the place, learn who's who and what's what before starting to add value.  They want to be set up for success, and they want to start proving themselves on day one."

The poll found that 44 percent of managers believe that the reliance that Generation Z have on technology will be an advantage – but then not all companies will have the technological tools expected by Generation Z.

Jeff Corbin stated, "Companies aren't necessarily on board with mobile as a business strategy. Yes, they recognize that it's important - but what about the ways they are doing business that hasn’t changed - even though the people they are dealing with and their ways of living have changed considerably?"

He cited that many companies still spend considerable resources creating lengthy newsletters which are distributed as print, intranet and email.

Generation Z has always lived in world of internet connection, smartphones and tablets.  Managers responding to the survey saw this as a positive and 42 percent said that they plan on introducing more technology tools. 

“Most Millennials remember a time when fax machines and landline phones were commonly used and AOL dial-up was the only way to access the internet, but their incoming Generation Z colleagues only know of these things from history books and movies. Bottom line – this new generation of workers expects technology to touch every facet of their life and companies should embrace this sooner than later,” said Jeff Corbin, CEO of APPrise Mobile.

The National Labor Relations Board originally heard a complaint from an employee, Mr Navarro, against Banner Health System – an organization that had adopted a confidentiality agreement covering the sharing between employees of private employee information concerning pay rates and disciplinary actions. Banner was told by the court that policies cannot stop workers from talking about pay.

Banner Health is a large healthcare system in Phoenix, AZ. James Navarro worked at Banner, sterilizing surgical equipment. On February 19th 2011 Navarro could not use the autoclave which is a large, pressurized steam sterilizer normally used for sterilizing reusable medical instruments.  This was because the hospital's steam pipe was broken.

He was instructed to use hot water from the coffee machine for the first step in the cleaning process and then to use a low-temperature sterilizer with hydrogen peroxide.

Mr Navarro was concerned that those procedures violated the established protocol, which caused him to raise questions with various supervisors and do some quick research – none of which allayed his concerns.

After confirming there were adequate clean instruments available for the day's scheduled surgeries and deliveries, Mr Navarro did not sterilize any additional instruments.  He spoke to several other workers at the facility about the problems, and was disciplined for it.

A couple of days later, Mr Navarro visited Banner's human resources consultant, reported his discomfort with the prescribed procedures and expressed concern for his job. That same afternoon, Mr Navarro's supervisor gave him a “non-disciplinary coaching” and - a few days later - a negative yearly evaluation.

The main evidence supporting the claim was the confidentiality agreement and an interview of complainant form – referred to by the human resources consultant – which was the primary evidence in support of the charge that Banner maintained an over-broad investigative non-disclosure policy.  The introduction included the wording, “I ask you not to discuss this with your co-workers while this investigation is going on, for this reason - when people are talking it is difficult to do a fair investigation and separate facts from rumors.”  However, the HR consultant stated that she did not request non-disclosure from Mr Navarro and he did not testify that he was asked to keep the matter confidential – nor his interview with HR.

It was held that Banner's confidentiality agreement violated the National Labor Relations Act but that its investigative non-disclosure policy and treatment of Mr Navarro did not.

On later appeal by Banner, it was found that Banner’s policies could discourage discussions about working conditions - a right guaranteed under labor law, the court said.

This ruling impacts on all employers and shows that even non-union businesses must watch speech restrictions.

British Airways (BA) recently announced that a consultation exercise would shortly commence regarding the proposals to close its New Airways Pension Scheme (NAPS). A significant and growing funding deficit was cited as the reason for the closure. 

Because of this, thousands of British Airways employees’ retirements have been plunged into uncertainty. 

British Airways stated that the NAPS scheme’s deficit reached £3.7bn in March of this year, making it the largest of all UK company pension black holes relative to the firm’s overall value. The airline said it had paid £3.5bn into the scheme since 2003.  They also stated that in 2015 they had committed to pay between £300m-£450m a year into the NAPS scheme until 2027 and this was regardless of whether new contributions from employees are stopped.

If NAPS remained open to accrual, the cost of providing future benefits could rise to 45% of individuals’ pensionable pay in 2018 – more than four times the typical employer contribution for UK airlines.

The trade unions Unite and GMB slated the move and conveyed their dismay and disappointment at proposals from the airline to shut NAPS to future contributions from its existing 17,000 members. 

It is understood that discussions between the airline and the unions had focused on ways to make the scheme sustainable and the possibility of it closing had not been brought up, until the statement by British Airways.  

In a joint statement, the two unions said, “Our team of financial analysts has worked tirelessly with the airline over the last few months to explore ways to keep the pension scheme open and secure it for the future.”  They added, “This announcement sadly confirms that our advice has gone unheeded and that we have been unable to convince British Airways that keeping the scheme open is the right thing to do, for both the company and its employees.”

British Airways have stated that members would still receive what they were due in their retirement – meaning payments from the Scheme would likely continue for decades. NAPS was created in 1984 and offered members lower benefits in return for a lower contribution rate than its predecessor, The Airways Pension Scheme (APS).

British Airways lost a High Court battle against the Trustees of APS in May after they pushed through a £12m discretionary payment in 2011 to make up for a change in the inflation link.

A challenging period lies ahead for BA, with the company likely to face strong opposition from members, unions and the Trustee Board. However, having regard to the level of NAPS’ deficit and the trend for final scheme closures generally, it should perhaps come as no surprise that BA wishes to close to accrual.

Many defined benefit pension schemes are under pressure due to increased life expectancy of the members and record low interest rates. Pension schemes invest greatly in Government bonds – whose yields have fallen to historic lows in recent years – meaning that the money earned from these investments fails to cover the liabilities that the schemes face.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is changing the way in which organizations innovate and communicate their processes, products and services. Practical strategies for employing artificial intelligence are available to data and analytics leaders now.

This is according to a report by Gartner Inc. - based in Stamford, Connecticut - which has predicted that within the next four years jobs will be eliminated by artificial intelligence.  However, that will only be in the initial stages, as more jobs will then be created.

According to the Gartner’s ‘Top Strategic Predictions for 2018 and Beyond....’ employees will turn to chatbots to replace apps to complete their work – forcing HR to adapt how it manages the way its employees’ interact with the new technologies.

The report states that "….today, chatbots are the face of AI and will impact all areas where there is communication between humans. Bots will take over some of the functions of apps and change the way users interact with technology. Bots will also increase employee engagement and automate tasks faster."

Daryl Plummer, vice president and Gartner Fellow, Distinguished Companies, states,

 "Technology-based innovation is arriving faster than most organizations can keep up with. Before one innovation is implemented, two others arrive. Companies will be required to develop a discipline around how pace can be achieved..….Speed of change will require variability of skills and capabilities to address rising challenges."

Gartner report forecasts that by 2020, artificial intelligence will have eliminated 1.8 million - but created 2.3 million jobs.  The report states that in 2019 more jobs will be eliminated than created, but it is believed that the number of jobs created by artificial intelligence in 2020 will overcome the shortfall.  The report carries on to say that the elimination of jobs will vary considerably industry by industry, with some - such as healthcare and education - not being affected.  Of the organizations with artificial intelligence already in operation, 77 percent have reported that they have more job gains than losses.

Gartner forecasts that by 2021, 40 percent of IT staff will hold "multiple roles, most of which will be business, rather than technology-related." They predict that by 2019, IT technical specialist jobs will fall by more than 5 percent as digital business initiatives require increasing numbers of IT employees to be more versatile (in 2017, IT specialists represent about 42 percent of the entire IT workforce).

In future, employees will constantly need to keep their skills upgraded and permanent learning will be vital to keep pace with all the technological changes in the workplace. Regulations will need to change to ensure that companies are keeping data safe and as more devices connect to the Internet, HR professionals will need to make certain that all devices connecting their organizations to the web are safe.

During a recent webcast, speakers from Mercer Sirota (a global consultancy focusing on talent, health, retirement and investments) stated that women - more than men - feel that they can't speak with candor in the workplace.

The speakers cited the fact that women feel they cannot be up front about ethical concerns and are not treated considerately by managers.  They based this on the results of a recent 80 question survey of 3,010 U.S. workers - and on findings from five years of surveys given to about 1.3 million employees. The study related to what drives engagement and satisfaction in the workplace for men and women.

The survey found that 68% of women who responded agreed that they are satisfied with their jobs compared to 73% of men - and although both men and women reported that the type of work they do is the key factor that engages them, they were found to differ on the other factors that motivated them. 

The question of whether pay in the workplace is fair and transparent was put to the respondents of the survey and 41% of women said they believed it was compared to 51% of men.  According to a Mercer webcast speaker, complementing pay to performance keeps men and women satisfied at work - but the absence of fair earnings is especially discouraging to women.  

However, women are more concerned than men about the consequences of being candid at work.  A third of women stated that the do not feel able to express their views or ideas without fear of repercussions.  This compared with 29% of men.  When interviewed, Megan Connolly - a senior consultant at Mercer Sirota - stated that since the results were based in part on Mercer Sirota's ongoing survey of about 1.3 million employees worldwide, even a 4-percentage-point difference is something to pay attention to.      

The webcast speakers pointed out that if employees cannot be candid about new ideas or concerns in the workplace, they are less likely to feel positive about their career advancement and development opportunities.

Sixty-six percent of women believe that employees can get a fair hearing for their complaints, compared with 70% of men and women are also less comfortable than men speaking out about ethical concerns. More than 1 in 4 female employees, 26%, said they do not believe they can report an ethical concern without retaliation, compared with 21% of men.

Fifty-one percent of female employees said they believe that managers consider the impact of their actions on staff before making decisions and 56% of male employees believe the same.

Megan Connolly said, "A common theme in each of these differences is perceived fairness. We know that fairness is a crucial factor when it comes to building engagement."

Mercer Sirota principal, Pete Foley stated, "This research clearly suggests that companies that measure these gaps and focus efforts on closing them can not only improve engagement but help women thrive in the workplace." 

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has found that an investigation into an employee’s misconduct could not be regarded as unfair because the investigation report included details of the employee’s previous acts of misconduct, for which no disciplinary action had been taken.

In the case of NHS 24 v Pillar, Ms Pillar - a nurse - was dismissed for gross misconduct after a third patient safety incident (PSI).

Ms Pillar had previously been responsible for two similar incidents - one of which was two years before her dismissal and the other four years before her dismissal. Neither of those previous incidents had been treated as disciplinary matters at the time. However, the manager who investigated the third patient safety incident included details about the two previous PSIs in his report and this investigation report was used at the disciplinary hearing which resulted in Ms Pillar’s dismissal.

Ms Pillar claimed unfair dismissal and at the Employment Tribunal it was decided that it was reasonable, based on patient safety, for the employer to have treated the latest PSI as gross misconduct.  However, to dismiss was unfair as it was not reasonable to rely on the investigation report from the disciplinary hearing - given that the report relied on the inclusion of details concerning the two previous PSIs which had not led to disciplinary action.

The employer appealed and the Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed with the arguments presented by the employer and decided that dismissal was fair.  Ms Pillar’s argument was that the investigation report included too much information regarding the two previous incidents for which she had not, in fact, been disciplined. 

However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal stated that this was not a case of ‘totting up’ warnings - as none had been given - but an overall lack of clinical competence and it was wrong of the Employment Tribunal to decide that background information relevant to patient safety should have been withheld. A dismissal could be rendered unfair if the investigation is overzealous or unfair, but the role of the investigator is to put together all the relevant information and in this case, the fact that the employee had committed two prior PSIs was relevant information, which was entitled to be taken into account when the decision was made regarding dismissal.

This case could be assumed to give some reassurance to employers but it also reminds them that a fair investigation must be carried out by a separate investigating officer - and that it is possible for dismissal to be unfair if the investigation is not sufficient.  Also, in relation to past misconduct which has not been the subject of disciplinary action, employers should consider carefully its relevance to the case in question.  

Research by the Chartered Management Institute (CMI) and XpertHR has found that female HR managers earn £4.5k less than their male counterparts – which equates to approximately 10% difference.

New analysis carried out by CMI and XpertHR shows that while the average salary of a female manager is £40,177, male managers have an average of £44,646. This vast difference of £4,469 includes salary, bonuses and perks such as car allowance and commission.

The gender pay gap in the HR sector although significant, is considerably lower than it is across other sectors in UK businesses where the average male manager earns 26.8% more than their female colleagues.

This is the first year that research on management pay has been published and the CMI and XpertHR note that only 77 of 7,850 UK companies to which the new regulations apply have published their gender pay gap.

The new research shows that the gender pay gap is particularly high in finance jobs -where male managers earn 33.9% more than their female counterparts, which is equivalent to a salary difference of more than £18,000.  It is lowest in IT, where male managers earn just over 8% - or £3,758 - more than their female colleagues.

The study also found that women are less likely than men to fill junior management positions - 66% of jobs going to men whilst only 34% were given to women. Men were also found to be more likely to occupy senior positions - with only 26% of director roles being filled by women.  What is most discouraging is that even when women do obtain the senior roles, the pay gap widens to £34,144 with men earning an average of £175,673 and women earning just £141,529.

Ann Francke - CMI’s chief executive - comments: “Too many businesses are like ‘glass pyramids’ with women holding the majority of lower-paid junior roles and far fewer reaching the top. We now see those extra perks of senior management roles are creating a gender pay gap wider than previously understood. The picture is worst at the top, with male CEOs cashing-in bonuses six times larger than female counterparts. Our data shows we need the Government’s gender pay gap reporting regulations more than ever before. Yet, less than one percent of companies have reported so far. Time for more companies to step up and put plans in place to fix this issue. It’s essential if UK companies are to survive and thrive in the post-Brexit world.”

This year’s analysis also suggests that whilst salary and bonuses are increasing for both men and women, the benefits are going, to a greater extent, to men. Male directors received a 5.8% increase in pay and bonuses - compared to 3.7% for women.

Mark Crail - XpertHR content director said: “We have always known that the gender pay gap appears to widen with seniority. But the results we are publishing today enable us to quantify the gap using a large volume of reliable, checked and verified pay data, drawn directly from employer payroll systems. Some people have tried to explain the gender pay gap away as being the result of different working hours or individual career choices, but when the analysis is based on the pay of more than 100,000 individuals in well over 400 organisations, it is clear that the pay gap is a very real fact of life for UK managers.”

Three Square Market, a technology company in River Falls Wisconsin, recently became one of the first companies in the world - and the first in the US - to microchip staff.  It was approved by regulators in 2004.

Three Square Market is taking its lead from Sweden, where several companies are pioneering the employee microchip movement.

Although other companies in Sweden, the Czech Republic and Belgium have previously offered similar programmes, fewer than 10 per cent of workers have taken up the idea.  However, at Three Square Market more than 50 out of 80 employees have volunteered so far making this the largest uptake of any scheme yet.  This should now herald the way for other such schemes to be commonly adopted.

The chip costs approximately £230 each and is the size of a grain of rice.  It uses RFID - or radio-frequency identification technology - which is also used by postmen who scan parcels on barcodes and the same technology is used in a contactless credit card.  It is implanted between the thumb and forefinger.

Employees will not be required to have the implants and the chip will not track employees or have GPS positioning. 

Todd Westby, CEO of Three Square Market explained: ‘We foresee the use of RFID technology to drive everything from making purchases in our office break room market, opening doors, use of copy machines, logging into our office computers, unlocking phones, sharing business cards, storing medical/health information, and used as payment at other RFID terminals. It's the next thing that's inevitably going to happen, and we want to be a part of it. Eventually, this technology will become standardised allowing you to use this as your passport, public transit, all purchasing opportunities."  He added, “We think it's the right thing to do for advancing innovation just like the driverless car basically did in recent months.”

Mr Westby stated that the response among staff ‘exceeded my expectations’.

In the UK, biometric access systems such as facial, eye and fingerprint recognition have grown in use without any legal challenges and as, so far, there are no reported cases concerning the use of implanted microchips in employees in the UK, there has not been a legal challenge. However, if considering implementing this in the workplace, employers should tread very carefully.

Employees would have to give full and free consent to having microchips implanted – and be able to withdraw consent at any time as an employee who was instructed or who felt pressured to accept could potentially resign – claiming constructive dismissal.

Human rights, religious objections, personal injury claims (if the chip was incorrectly implanted) and the forthcoming General Data Protection Regulation will also have to be taken into account.  However, just as CCTV grew to be universally accepted, micro-chipping employees may soon be the new ‘norm’.

Estée Lauder are being sued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for giving new mothers more paid leave for care giving and child-bonding than new fathers.

If the lawsuit is successful, it could alter common parental leave policies in the U.S.

On Aug.30, the EEOC alleged in their lawsuit that Estée Lauder Companies Inc. infringed federal law by giving female employees who are new mothers more parental leave benefits than male employees who are new fathers. 

In addition to the paid leave provided to new mothers to recover from childbirth, Estée Lauder provides new mothers with six additional weeks of paid parental leave for child bonding. New fathers receive two weeks of paid leave for child bonding. The lawsuit - filed in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia - also alleges that new mothers are provided with flexible return-to-work benefits that are not similarly provided to new fathers.

The EEOC asserts that this policy violates the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibit discrimination in pay or benefits based on sex.

The agency began the case after Christopher Sullivan, a stock worker at a Maryland store, requested six weeks of leave for the birth of his child - but was only granted two.  Mr. Sullivan informed Estee Lauder that he would be the child’s primary caregiver, but he was told that the company only applied the primary caregiver title in surrogacy situations. Estee Lauder’s parental care policy was implemented in 2013 and provides primary caregivers six weeks of paid parental leave.  Fathers at Estée Lauder are eligible for secondary caregiver leave only. 

The EEOC's lawsuit against Estée Lauder is the most recent to be brought against a company for having different parental-leave policies for their female and male staff.  In June, a male fraud investigator at J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. alleged that the bank discriminated against him, saying that fathers were denied equal paid parental leave with mothers.

Supporters of equal paid leave say that the imbalance reinforces traditional gender roles by encouraging new mothers to stay at home and discouraging fathers from taking time off to care for a new child.

Mindy Weinstein, Acting Director of the EEOC’s Washington field office praised Estee Lauder for its parental leave policy and flexible work arrangements which were great in their intent.  However, she added,  “… federal law requires equal pay for equal work, and that applies to men as well as women.”

Results of recent research by employee engagement specialists, Reward Gateway, shows that employees are not getting what they require from their current wellbeing programmes - despite the fact that their wellbeing has been a top agenda point for HR for some years. 

The research surveyed 250 employees and 250 employers (senior decision makers) and was conducted in September 2017 by Censuswide.

The disparity of opinion between employee and employers has been shown in the results - over half of employers agree that their company shows that they care about employee’s mental, physical and financial wellbeing - whilst only 14% of employees say that their company could not do more to show they care about their mental, physical and financial wellbeing.

Research states that it is in the employer’s interest to care about their employee’s wellbeing as it was shown that more than half (52%) of UK employees agree that they would choose a company that cared about their wellbeing over one that pays more.  It is even more urgent to address the closing of the gap when consideration is given to the following results:

• 33% of those surveyed said that their company currently offers no wellbeing programmes
• Only 29% said that their company currently offers a physical wellbeing programme
• Only 23% said that their company currently offers a financial wellbeing programme
• Only 22% said that their company currently offers a mental wellbeing programme

• Over 22 million British workers, or 7 in 10 employees (71%), have felt stress or financial strain in the last five years

Head of Wellbeing at Reward Gateway, Lucy Tallick said,

“Employee wellbeing is not about crisis management and fixing problems. It’s about helping your people live better and feel better by facilitating sustainable lifestyle changes that really make a difference.  Employers should take into consideration that everyone has unique desires and needs, and, in order to gain buy in, it's much better to give the employee solutions that provide choice and flexibility. By creating an inclusive programme, you’ll also hugely increase your engagement.”

Doug Butler, CEO at Reward Gateway said,

“Wellbeing is a crucial part of employee engagement and, as the research shows, companies are struggling to implement the wellbeing initiatives that their staff need.  We continue to innovate our wellbeing offering in order to help our clients on their engagement journey. The selection available is wide-ranging, inclusive, and designed to enable our clients to support their employees’ unique wellbeing needs. By offering a broad range of wellbeing solutions that include educational content on how to live a healthier lifestyle, impartial advice from money experts, an employee assistance programme (EAP), and industry leading discounts and payment plans on gyms and fitness equipment, our goal is to support what we believe to be the three key pillars of holistic wellbeing; Physical, Mental and Financial.”

The Government is being called upon to invest £13m a year to provide HR support to small businesses - as new research shows that it could be a key part of finding the answer to the problem of productivity.  

The new research by the CIPD (supported by J P Morgan through the J P Morgan Chase Foundation) suggests that giving small businesses basic HR support can help in this respect.   The pilot scheme, ‘People Skills’, ran from July 2015 to October 2016 and was based in Hackney, Stoke-on-Trent and Glasgow.  It has been evaluated by a team at Manchester Metropolitan University through surveys and interviews with project stakeholders.

In each of the three locations, a small bank of independent HR consultants was recruited to provide free employment and people management advice to small businesses on demand.  The CIPD’s HR Inform online support system was also made available to project participants.

More than 400 small businesses - employing between 5 and 50 employees across the three areas - were helped.  In Glasgow, it was regarded as being so successful that when the research grant ran out, the city council continued to fund the programme. 

CIPD Head of Public Policy, Ben Wilmott said:

“People Skills’ shows the potential benefits of targeted investment to improve small firms’ capability around the management of people through co-ordinated high-quality, locally-delivered business support via channels such as Local Enterprise Partnerships, chambers of commerce and local authorities.”  He continued, “ If policy makers are serious about addressing the UK’s long-standing productivity deficit - particularly among the nearly 1.3 million small businesses that employ between 1 and 50 people - then they have to start seriously thinking about how to improve management quality, which the Bank of England’s chief economist Andy Haldane has identified as a key area for focus. ‘People Skills’ provides a template of how to actually do this on the ground among small businesses.  We calculate that about £40m from the Government’s National Productivity Investment Fund would support the £13m annual cost of running a ‘People Skills’ type service across all 38 Local Enterprise Partnerships in England for three years and could revolutionise the quality of business support for small firms.”

Hang Ho, EMEA Head of the J P Morgan Chase Foundation, said:

“Small business success is an essential element of the UK economy and a critical component in creating thriving local communities. Today’s report shines a light on the importance of basic HR practices to the success of small businesses, whether that is improving productivity, boosting the effectiveness of the management team or handling crises. While we hope the ‘People Skills’ pilot will benefit participating companies in the long term, the findings clearly also demonstrate to policy makers a real need for HR support amongst SMEs.”

The key findings are that online business support is inadequate unless supplemented by personal advice and support - with face-to-face advice particularly valued by small business owner managers; that existing fragmented business support provided at a local level should be justified to prevent duplication of provision and confusion among SMEs; that policy makers need to re-think how they encourage SMEs to employ and train young people in the workplace - for example through apprenticeships - as in most cases they don’t have the interest or capability to do this. Re-focusing a proportion of government investment in skills to providing enhanced business support around people management capability for SMEs would, over time, give more small businesses the capability and confidence to engage in programmes supporting young people into work in the future.

In employment lawsuits being filed now, retaliation claims appear to be more prevalent than discrimination claims. Despite an employer having strong evidence of poor performance and misconduct, they may still be held liable for retaliation if they take adverse action soon after protected conduct occurs.

For example, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has ruled that a Maintenance Director at a nursing care facility can pursue his Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) claims to trial, despite being fired for monitoring his supervisor's work attendance.  

Louis DeCicco was hired by Mid-Atlantic Healthcare LLC as the Director of Maintenance for Maplewood Nursing and Rehabilitation Center – providing long-term nursing care and rehabilitation services.

During a meeting in January 2012, Mr DeCicco was issued with a performance improvement plan by his supervisor, Sarah Balmer.  The performance plan informed Mr DeCicco that he was under review for:

• not providing adequate training and mentoring to a subordinate
• failing to resolve long-standing issues with security staff
• failing to respond to facility phone calls
• failing to take a more active role in resolving the facility's maintenance issues

However, at about this time, Mr DeCicco began monitoring Sarah Balmer's work attendance, reviewing footage installed at Maplewood.  He also reviewed Sarah Balmer's timesheets and prepared logs of her absences from the facility – which he was not authorized to investigate.  

Five months later, a second performance improvement plan was issued to Mr DeCicco by Sarah Balmer. On the same day he also received a written warning for addressing a contractor in an unprofessional way and a verbal warning for allegedly not taking certain action, which resulted in the facility at Maplewood being short of one bed.

Later that month, Maplewood Human Resources Director, Stephanie Massey, was asked by Mr DeCicco to supply FMLA paperwork. As Mr DeCicco was the primary caregiver for his disabled father he intended to use FMLA leave to care for him. Stephanie Massey provided the paperwork to Mr DeCicco immediately.

Mr DeCicco met up with Caroline Eldridge - who was the new Human Resources Director – on June 15, to discuss several issues. They included Mr DeCicco's performance improvement plans; the alleged absenteeism of Sarah Balmer and Mr DeCicco's perceived lack of support from Mid-Atlantic. At that meeting, Mr DeCicco told Caroline Eldridge that he expected to have his employment terminated.

Three days later, Mr DeCicco returned his FMLA certification of health care provider form to Mid-Atlantic's human resources department.

Later the same evening, Sarah Balmer e-mailed John Fredericks (Regional Director of Operations), stating that she intended to terminate Mr DeCicco in two weeks time. She added that she had become aware that Mr DeCicco was monitoring her attendance and stated that he was not the type of person she wanted working for her.  She explained that he had been on a performance improvement plan since January 2012 and that his comment on her attendance was a ‘lie’.

On June 19, Sarah Balmer issued a final written warning to Mr DeCicco and placed him on another performance improvement plan, which was due to expire on July 3.

On June 20, John Fredericks terminated Mr DeCicco’s employment in the presence of the regional HR Director.  At that time, Mr DeCicco was 47 years of age.

He was replaced by a man Mid-Atlantic claimed was 43 years old at the time he was hired.

In May 2014, Mr DeCicco filed a lawsuit claiming age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Pennsylvania Human Rights Act.  He also claimed interference with his rights and retaliation under the FMLA.

The court found that Mr DeCicco was placed on several written performance improvement plans warnings during his employment and had not contested that he reviewed camera footage, etc to conduct an independent investigation of Sarah Balmer’s attendance record – which he did only after he was placed on a performance improvement plan.

The court found that Mr DeCicco failed to show that any of Mid-Atlantic's reasons for firing him were misleading and dismissed his age discrimination claims.

However, with regard to Mr DeCicco's FMLA claims, the court found that his FMLA request and completed application were so close in time to his final warning and dismissal that it was unusually suggestive of retaliation. The court denied Mid-Atlantic summary judgment on Mr DeCicco's FMLA claims and allowed them to proceed to trial.

 A number of questions for employers and employees are being raised due to the vagueness resulting from the Brexit referendum and the prospect of the UK leaving the EU. 

Dominating the HR agenda will be projects for data protection and gender pay reporting. The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) comes into force in May 2018 – when employers will be required to carry out audits of employee personal data that they collect and to make certain that it meets the conditions for employee consent.  Employers will also have to create new record-keeping requirements.  As this will come into effect before the UK leaves the EU, organisations not compliant will risk a fine of up to 20 million Euros or 4% of worldwide turnover.  

Organisations with 250 employees or more are also being required to publish gender pay gap information for the first time.  This will apply to the private sector, voluntary sector and public sector organisations.  The gender pay gap regulations are expected to have an implementation deadline of April 2018.

In addition employers are likely to experience increasing costs as the apprenticeship levy and extra fees for foreign worker sponsorship are introduced.  There were financial changes for employers sponsoring foreign workers which took effect in April but some new entrants to the job market - and some health and education staff - will be exempt from the new salary threshold until 2019.

Tax savings for employee benefits are also likely to be reduced and many employers will have had to reconsider their schemes, as salary-sacrifice schemes have been abolished.  However childcare, cycle to work and low emission car schemes have not been affected and all schemes in place prior to April of this year will be protected until April 2018.  Arrangements relating to car, accommodation or school fees are protected until 2021.

The alignment of rates for the national living wage - plus current and future rates for statutory maternity, paternity, adoption, shared parental and sick pay have already taken place.

New trade union balloting rules will apply too.  Under these rules, a successful vote for strike action will mean that 50% turnout and a majority vote in favour will be required.  Important public services will need a vote of 40% of all eligible voters.

The HR profession is being expected to help managers and employees to navigate their way through the short and medium-term implications of Brexit, especially as the effects of HR policy and practice become clearer.

Where gender pay gap reporting is concerned, new research has shown that many organisations are finding the process confusing and misleading and fewer than half of UK companies think the requirement to publish their gender pay gap will have any impact on closing it.

Mercer’s 2017 Gender Pay Gap Reporting survey was to further last year’s research conducted to gain information from HR and Reward professionals on their awareness, concerns and plans surrounding the legislation. It was also seeking to discover how far organisations had progressed.  Participants were found to welcome changes in the regulations and are in favour of the legislation in principle. It is clear that HR professionals implementing the legislation are concerned about the complexity, difficulty and misleading nature of the measures used and therefore, a lot of effort is expected to be made in clarifying and explaining the results - both internally and externally.

A study by Mercer of 165 companies revealed that 41% found the process complex; 29% thought it was confusing and 28% found the rules misleading. Just 7% described the process as comprehensive and only 3% said it was simple.

Of the businesses taking part in the survey, almost 44% plan on reporting later in the year –whilst 28% said they do not know when they will report.

Charles Cotton, senior performance and reward manager at the CIPD stated, “Employers shouldn’t be tempted to put off reporting to the last moment. If they haven’t already started, they need to think about how they communicate to employees, potential workers, existing customers and other stakeholders, what the figures mean, and what action they are going to take and why.”

Mercer also found that 70% of the organisations surveyed would release an explanation of their gender pay figures along with the hard data.

Chris Charman, principal and reward expert at Mercer said, “Although committed to the principle of reporting, many UK companies feel the figures will show an overly simplistic view and so see a need to explain further to their staff and shareholders.  Many companies are concerned about the risk of reputational damage when publishing their figures, especially as there still seems to be much confusion between the gender pay gap and the legal requirement of equal pay for equal work.”  He added, “Most organisations are focused on getting to grips with the figures and developing a narrative to explain. Leading organisations are well advised to think about how they can be looking ahead in order to be making improvements in future years. At the heart of this is looking at root causes, which can be found in pay, female promotion and the jobs that men and women predominate in.”

Mercer’s point of view on Gender Pay Gap reporting is partly about pay, but largely about workforce profile and dynamics - such as hiring; promotion rates of women versus men and occupational segregation. They state that understanding the wider issue requires insight, but real success comes from recognising this as a business issue – higher levels of diversity in organisations are associated with greater business performance and innovation.

The controversial, workload-increasing changes to the U.S. EEO-1 have been ‘stayed indefinitely’.

The new ruling was announced by Randel Johnson – the VP of Labor, Immigration and Employee Benefits at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – who addressed the members of the Chamber’s Labor Relations and Employee Benefits Committee by saying:

“We have just learned that the deadline for compliance with the new EEO-1 form reporting requirement for data on hours and compensation will be stayed indefinitely.  According to our sources (The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the office of Management and Budget) based their decision on two grounds, one of which was the appeal submitted by the Chamber that highlighted the new form’s problems with cost, utility and confidentiality.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will be publishing further details about what actions they will be taking and any future deadlines and timelines in the Federal Register.  This is a victory – not just for the business community but for common sense in the world of regulations and information collection.  As you know, the Chamber was at the forefront throughout the development of the revised form in crafting arguments opposing EEOC’s gross overreach in expanding the existing EEO-1 form to unmanageable proportions, without any discernible benefit.  We will provide more details on this important development as they become available....”

As it has previously been reported, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was to require employers of 100 or more employees – and federal contractors with 50 or more employees – to give compensation data with their EEO-1 reports.

In addition, the EEO-1 filing deadline of September 30, 2017 was to be moved to March 31, 2018 with reports due on March 31 of every subsequent year.

Employers would continue to categorize employees, first by EEO-1 job category using EEOC’s 10 job categories and then by sex and ethnicity or race.

These have not changed but after reporting those details, employers would then categorize their employees by pay bands. The EEOC has added a total of 12 pay bands to the form – starting with $19,239 and under and ending with $208,000 and over.  Employers would add up the number of employees in each pay band by sex, and ethnicity or race. Finally, the new rules require firms to report the total number of hours worked by employees in each pay band.

Victoria Lipnic, Acting Chair of the EEOC received a memorandum from the Administrator of the OIRA, Neomi Rao stating that the new form can continue to be used but only to collect the usual EEO-1 information, i.e. the number of employees by race, sex and ethnicity in each of the 10 EEO-1 categories.

Randstad US - one of the largest national staffing and HR service organizations - released a report in August stating that 82 percent of job seekers are frustrated with an excessively automated recruiting experience.  Candidates who apply online for jobs and never hear back from potential employers about the status of their applications are particularly affected.

Research findings are based on an OmniPulse survey fielded by national polling firm Research Now on behalf of Randstad US and was fielded for four days in June 2017.  It reviewed approximately 1,200 respondents over the age of 18 years with a nationally representative sample balanced on age, gender and region. Most applicants for jobs agreed with the technology used but were irritated when it replaced the human side of the recruiting procedure. 

The report found that 95 percent of those reviewed stated that technology should be used to assist recruitment – not replace it; 85 percent said technology made seeking employment more impersonal and 82 percent said that ideally, innovative technologies should be used in the background and come second to personal interaction.   In effect, in working with staffing or recruitment firms, candidates named ‘a company that uses innovative technologies to find me jobs but puts human interaction first’ as the most appealing. 

Linda Galipeau, North America CRO of Randstad based in Atlanta said:

“The findings reinforce what we've believed for quite some time - that successful talent acquisition lies at the intersection of technology and human touch.  If done correctly, the right combination of personal interaction with the power of today's intelligent machines can create an experience that is inherently more human."

William Tincup of SHRM-SCP, an expert on recruiting technology and president of recruitment media company RecruitingDaily stated:

“Artificial intelligence (AI) programs may help improve the candidate experience.  For example - recruiters are horrible at letting candidates know where they are in the recruiting process - AI will make it so that feedback is consistently given."

Linda Galipeau also remarked:

"Employers today and in the future will be judged by the experience they create for prospective new hires. Job candidates are empowered to provide instant feedback on employers, rating a company's candidate experience just as they would rate a movie. In a tightening labor market, companies cannot afford to lose potential talent due to a poor hiring experience. And in a technology-driven world of talent, it's not only about how a company markets itself but what others say about the company that has a positive impact on employer branding."

Pete Lamson, CEO of JazzHR - a recruiting software company based in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania - agreed and stated:

"I think certainly being highly responsive helps, respond back, it reflects back on the employer's brand."

Job seekers have become increasingly savvy about what makes a great candidate experience and what leaves them with a less-than-favorable impression. Respondents to the survey named "the degree of personal, human interaction during the process," and "the recruiter/hiring manager I worked with," as having most influenced their positive impression. 

A new report found that nearly four in ten American adults don't have a job and are not looking for one.

President Donald Trump alleged – in his election-season – that America’s unemployment rate did not tell the whole story and is ‘one of the biggest hoaxes in modern politics’.  He claimed that the real unemployment rate could actually be 40 percent higher.

Anyone without a job and who has been actively seeking work in the last four weeks is considered, by the government, to be unemployed.  Slipping through the cracks are those who have simply given up trying to get back into the labor force.

A new study by Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project, takes a closer look at the more than ninety-four million Americans not counted in the labor force.  In this analysis, the following questions were explored.  Of the approximately twenty four million men and women of working age who were not in the labour force in 2016:

• What are the reasons given for not working or seeking work?
• With whom are these persons living?
• How are they making ends meet?

The findings were that women with a high school education or less are overwhelmingly the largest group out of the labor force.  Excluding the care givers - who make up approximately forty percent - men and women give the same reasons for not belonging to the labor force.  Almost thirty per cent report being ill or disabled; eight percent are students and five percent have retired early.

Male and female nonparticipants were found to have different living arrangements, with females living with a spouse or partner and males living with parents.  Almost seventy five percent of these live in a household with earned income and only eleven percent report claiming income from a safety net when they are not receiving earned income.  More than 1.3 million Americans who are not in the labor force report having no income at all.   Forty five percent of households with a male prime-age nonparticipant and twenty eight percent with a female prime-age nonparticipant are in the bottom income group.

Researchers also found that more women than men sat on the sidelines in every educational subgroup, despite the fact that more women hold advanced degrees than men.

The report said, "Interestingly, the gender ratios among nonparticipants become more imbalanced as education increases. Among nonparticipants with a high school degree or less, there are nearly 2 women for every man; at the bachelor's degree level, three-and-a-half times as many women as men are nonparticipants."

Roughly 13 percent were not in any of the categories but had worked in some capacity over the course of the past year.

"Labor force participation is the key channel through which Americans contribute to and benefit from their economy, making it vital that we understand who is left out of the labor force," the report said. "Economic growth and broad sharing in that growth are both enhanced when the labor market makes the best possible use of workers' talents."

A survey by CIPD (the professional body for HR and people development) and the Adecco Group - of more than 1,000 employers has identified that hiring demand remains strong, whilst unemployment is at a record low.  This is in comparison with a May 2017 report and it suggests that UK employment will grow strongly in the third quarter of 2017.  However, wage growth is likely to remain weak and basic pay award expectations for the next 12 months remain at just 1%.

The quarter’s net employment balance – which is a measure of the difference between the proportion of employers who expect to increase staffing levels and those who expect to decrease them – shows an increase from +20 to +27 during the past three months.

The restraint on the basic pay award outlook can be put down to various reasons. 

Gerwyn Davies, Senior Labour Market Analyst for the CIPD said:

“Predictions of pay growth increasing alongside strong employment growth is the dog that hasn’t barked for some time now, and we are still yet to see tangible signs of this situation changing in the near-term. The facts remain that productivity levels are stagnant; public sector pay increases remain modest while wage costs and uncertainty over access to the EU market have increased for some employers. At the same time, it is also clear that the majority of employers have still been able to find suitable candidates to employ at current wage rates due to a strong labour supply until now. The good news is that the UK labour market continues to go from strength to strength. This is particularly good news for jobseekers, especially the long-term unemployed, who have recently been able to move into work more quickly than in the past. We believe therefore that the Bank of England was right to give more weight to the prospects for pay and productivity than to the rise in employment in their recent interest rate decision. Against the backdrop of future migration restrictions and a tight labour market, the need for a workforce development plan is greater than ever.”   

In the private sector, 23% of firms quote that delivering the National Living Wage is a brake on pay growth; 21% cite uncertainty over access to the single market and 21% suggest the Government’s auto-enrolment pension’s scheme is acting as a challenge. Another 21% of firms report that affordability is keeping down pay - which underlines the urgent need to address the weak productivity growth in the UK.  In the meantime, around three quarters of public sector employers state that restraint in the public sector is the main reason why they cannot complement the inflation rate target of 2% in their next basic pay award.

Research by the CIPD also indicates that employee pay expectations are weaker this year compared with last year.  This may suggest that employers are not coming under any additional pressure to raise pay from workers, despite the low unemployment rate.

In retrospect, the standard for all basic pay decisions taken in the first six months of 2017 is 1.5%. This may mean that employers have become more negative about basic pay growth over the past six months due to a slowing economy. 

Alex Fleming, President of General Staffing at the Adecco Group UK remarked:

“This quarter’s report demonstrates strong and stable employment intentions. These have remained in a positive range for the last two years during which time we have seen unemployment consistently fall. Context is important here though: employers continuing to hire isn’t, necessarily, an indication that they are convinced of a bright economic future, rather that nothing significant has changed in recent months. Many employers are getting on with the day-to-day hiring required to keep their businesses ticking along until they have enough information to build concrete recruitment plans. Overall, our labour market picture looks promising especially considering the unknown future impact of Brexit on the flow of talent in and out of the UK. Strong labour supply is a key contributor: the long-term unemployed are finding work more quickly and the amount of workers aged 50-64 who are in employment has risen by around 200,000 during the past year. However continued subdued wage growth that the labour market is currently facing is a real issue that employers need to tackle head on. Employers must to invest in staff to increase productivity, thus in-turn providing them with the opportunity to increase wage growth.” 

Although the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has revealed that the number of people at retirement age in the UK who now receive a private pension income has almost doubled, The People’s Pension (TPP) has reported that retiring fully and relying solely on a pension is no longer an option for the majority.

Whilst almost 80% of retirees received a private pension last year, 52% of 4,000 expectant retirees polled believe that their financial situation will not support the lifestyle they would want in retirement. To supplement their pensions, 39% said they would have to continue to work on a part time basis, with 24% stating they will rely on inherited wealth.

Darren Philp, who is Director of Policy and Market Engagement for The People’s Pension stated:

“This research confirms that the concept of a “carriage clock” retirement, whereby people completely stop work and rely on their pension savings is consigned to history. Instead, people appear to be planning for a phased retirement, where they may choose to work part-time, or surviving on uncertain funding sources such as an inheritance or property. Most worryingly, these “precarious pensioners” are not solely the generations of the future but include those over 55, many of whom may be unprepared financially for imminent retirement.”

Even though state pension income has almost doubled in the last 40 years, the ONS disclosed that over half of the increase in gross income for average retirees is a result of an increase in income from private pensions. Retired households with private pensions had 60% more income than those relying on a state pension.

At the end of 2016, whilst the average income for a retired household was less than the average income for a non-retired household, data does however show that it has grown at a faster rate than the average non-retired household over the last 40 years.

Steve Webb, Director of Policy at Royal London said:

"In previous generations being elderly was a by-word for being poor. That has changed dramatically in the last 40 years with pensioner incomes nearly trebling whilst the incomes of the working age population rose much more slowly.”

Experts believe that while automatic enrollment will go a long way to improving retirement outcomes in the UK, the minimum contributions still won’t be sufficient. Workers will need to build up their pensions from the earliest possible age and at a faster rate than at present.

An important decision by the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) regarding holiday pay for employees who regularly work voluntary overtime beyond their contracted hours, could have massive implications for UK businesses.

The EAT recently heard a case concerning Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council v Willetts (and others) where they upheld a previously made decision that voluntary overtime worked for a sufficient period of time on a regular and/or recurring basis should be included in the first four weeks’ paid holiday.

Holiday pay claims had been brought against the Council by a group of 56 employees responsible for the repair and maintenance of council houses.   These employees normally worked 37 hours per week but once in every four or five weeks, they were on an ‘on call’ register and they worked additional voluntary hours. However, these voluntary payments had been excluded from their holiday pay and the workers argument was that this was contrary to the Working Time Regulations 1988 (WTRs).

When their initial claim was successful, Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council appealed to the EAT.  On upholding the earlier decision, the EAT referred to previous ECJ decisions which had stressed that all workers should receive their ‘normal remuneration’ when they take a holiday.  They should not be discouraged from implementing their right to take paid annual leave – and any decrease in their salary is presumed to be a deterrent.

The case was sent back to the Tribunal to determine whether or not Mr Willett and his co-workers had been underpaid their holiday pay.

Glenn Hayes of Irwin Mitchell stated, “This decision is extremely important and it is the first occasion the EAT has heard cases relating to purely voluntary overtime. Many businesses have adopted a ‘wait and see’ approach to voluntary overtime but this option is no longer possible and overtime that is worked regularly, must now be included in holiday pay.

“Not all voluntary overtime will have to be included but the EAT made it clear that overtime that ‘extends for a sufficient period of time on a regular or recurring basis’ will.

“There is no statutory definition of what amounts to ‘normal pay’ and Tribunals will continue to hear arguments about whether overtime, of whatever nature, has become part of an employee’s normal pay.”

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the United States economy produced 209,000 jobs in July.  This meant that the unemployment rate was down to 4.3 percent in July – beating all expectations from economists.

Jed Kolko, chief economist for job search engine Indeed said, "This was a banner jobs report. Job growth in the past three months is ahead of the 2016 pace and way ahead of what's needed to keep up with population growth. Working-age adults are now more likely to be employed than at any time since the recession."

Since a peak of 10% in 2009, the unemployment rate has been steadily falling.  In July, the unemployment rates were 4% for adult men and women, 13.2% for teenagers 3.8% for Asians, 7.4% for blacks and 3.8% for whites – all showing little or no change,  However, the unemployment rate for Hispanics was up to 5.1% from 4.8%.  Long term unemployed rose slightly to 1.8 million – 25.9% of the total unemployed.

According to the BLS, some unemployed people – although out of work and available for work – were not actively seeking a job as they believe there are none available for them. Others did not seek work due to family responsibilities.

Jed Kolko stated, "Today's low unemployment rate masks some reasons for concern.  Today's unemployed are more than twice as likely to be out of work for more than six months as the unemployed in April 2001. They're also more likely to be underemployed, as measured by the broader U-6 unemployment rate. Finally, a larger share of prime-working-age adults is not employed today versus April 2001 because they're out of the labor force.”

President Trump has tweeted encouragement to those who have given up looking for a job altogether, to start trying again to join the labor force.  He promised that he will continue to roll back "stifling regulations" that hurt jobs.

Cathy Barrera - the chief economic adviser for the online jobs platform ZipRecruiter – had been worried about younger workers falling behind since the recovery from the recession.  However, she stated, "……. we're starting to see a trend for that particular group with modest rises in labor force participation and downward ticks in unemployment.  We're seeing more jobs that don't require a college degree get posted. As more jobs become available for them, we could see their labor force participation return to pre-recession levels."

In July, food services gained 53,000 jobs; professional and business services gained 49,000 jobs and health care gained 39,000 jobs.  Employment in other major industries, including construction; manufacturing; wholesale trade; retail trade; transportation and warehousing; information; financial activities and government showed little change over the month.

Jed Kolko pointed out that "The fastest job growth in July was in lower-wage industries. That's helping the least-educated Americans get back to work. The recovery is now strong and long enough to lift many of the people hurt most by the recession—except in manufacturing, which continues to lag overall jobs growth."

Wage growth remains sluggish - with average hourly earnings for all private-sector workers rising by 9 cents in July to $26.36. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 65 cents, or 2.5 percent.

Cathy Barrera observed, "While we're still mystified by the muted wage growth, wages among the lower 25th percentile is growing a lot faster than those who are at the top 75th percentile.  This is one indication that the job market for younger workers and/or workers without college degrees may be heating up, which is great news because this is the group that has not seen as full a recovery as everyone else."

The Taylor Review into modern working practices has recently been published, with Matthew Taylor - and his colleagues on the Taylor Review, writing: “The starting point for our review has been the strength of our labour market and of the key features of our system of employment regulation, what we refer to as the British way.  Record levels of employment, low levels of unemployment, high levels of voluntary flexibility, wages now growing fastest amongst the lowest paid; these facts provide a very positive backdrop – one that would be envied in many other advanced economies – for our consideration of how to improve the quality of work.”

Peter Cheese, Chief Executive of the CIPD (the professional body for HR and people development) commented on the publication, saying, “The Taylor Review has the potential to change how we look at the future of work, which is about quality of work and not simply quantity. Translating the ambition into practice has an added importance given some of the additional challenges we face in the UK, from access to skills to labour market regulation post Brexit.” 

Some proposals suggested in the report include ‘a new role for the Low Pay Commission exploring how to improve quality and progression in sectors with a high proportion of low paid workers; a national framework for employability skills so we can develop the kind of transferable capabilities that can be acquired in formal education and also informal and on the job learning; recognising and supporting the role that employers can play in promoting health and wellbeing at work and making it much easier for employees to access rights to independent representation, information and consultation.’

It further read...‘to increase clarity for business and workers we propose primary legislation to define the boundary between self-employment and worker status; moving towards aligning the categories used in tax regulation and employment regulation and that the employment status boundary should be defined - as is the tax boundary - in terms of the level of control and supervision experienced by individuals.’

Peter Cheese declared, “We have been calling for greater clarity over workers’ rights for a long time, and therefore welcome the main thrust of the recommendations to ensure fairer treatment for gig economy workers without losing the flexibility which we know many of them value. We also support the proposals to clarify people’s employment status and rights and back plans to require employers to provide details of terms and conditions of employment to workers as well as employees.”

He also commented, “While we welcome the proposals for a stronger test of supervisory relationships in order to ensure workers get the benefits they are entitled to, we need to ensure that the framework for enforcing this is practical, otherwise we risk discouraging employers from providing flexible roles and opportunities that many people benefit from.” 

Peter Cheese added, “Crucially, Taylor stresses that the best way to improve the quality of work is through effective corporate governance, good management and strong employment relations within organisations and flags the need to boost productivity and job quality through working more closely with low pay employers and sectors. It is vital the Government develops these ideas as part of industrial strategy to ensure that the Taylor Review has lasting impact on work quality in the UK.”

The Department of Labor has asked if employing multiple salary levels for white-collar overtime exemptions is a good idea and in its request for information (RFI) on July 25, it suggested more complex alternatives to the Obama administration rule - which has been blocked.  This included adjusting the levels according to different costs of living in different states. 

It added that gathering public input on the following questions will aid in the development of a notice of proposed rulemaking:

• Should the regulations contain multiple standard salary levels?  If so, how should these levels be set - by size of employer; census region; census division; state; metropolitan statistical area or some other method
• Should there be multiple total annual compensation levels for the highly compensated employee exemption
• Would updating the 2004 salary level for inflation be appropriate and, if so, what measure of inflation should be used
• Should the standard salary level and the highly compensated employee total annual compensation level be automatically updated on a periodic basis

Alexander Passantino, an attorney with Seyfarth Shaw and former acting administrator of the DOL's Wage and Hour Division said, "Employing a cost-of-living-based salary test certainly would address a number of the concerns raised by employers in the previous go-round.  "A salary level that works for New York [City] or D.C. does not necessarily work for the rural South. Because of the way the duties test works in connection with the salary, however, the reverse is not necessarily true. The salary is a screening mechanism; if it is low enough to ensure we are not inappropriately screening out exempt employees in the rural South, it likewise serves that function in New York City."

The attorney went on to say that the DOL will have difficulty implementing different salary levels due to the fact that it will be hard to establish exactly where an employee works.      He added, "Imagine a company incorporated in Delaware with headquarters in New York; a regional office in Denver; a field supervisor working out of his home in Santa Fe who services a district covering El Paso, Texas, to Phoenix.  Then imagine he spends half his time in the Denver office and half his time working out of his home. The DOL would need to provide guidance on how to apply the proper salary level, which would be much more challenging for the department than setting one standard salary level. The multiple standard salary levels are "a great idea in principle—somewhat difficult in application."

Alfred Robinson Jr – an attorney in Washington D.C. and former acting administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, commented on the multiple standard levels by stating it ".......could result in some positions and employees being classified differently in different regions of the country even though they perform the same job duties."

Conversely, Jeffrey Brecher - an attorney with Jackson Lewis in Melville, N.Y. – said, "One of the criticisms of the original final rule was that it established a salary level that more than doubled the prior salary level and took no consideration for differences in salary levels among geographic areas. So setting a standard salary level that makes adjustments based on geographic location makes sense. Employers are used to variations in salary levels at the state-law level, so this is something the DOL will likely give serious consideration."

Speaking at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado on 19th July, John Kelly, US Homeland Security Secretary, discussed the decision taken earlier this year to allow personal electronic devices (PED’s) to be checked into baggage placed in aircraft holds, despite them being considered a risk in the passenger cabin.

Since March of this year until the end of June when they were eventually lifted, new security measures had been implemented which meant that passengers on US-bound services from some airports were forbidden from taking large electronic devices into the cabin. The ban affected 180 airlines and 280 airports globally.

However in June, DHS announced the lifting of the ban and issued a statement which read; “These airports and airlines have successfully implemented the first phase of enhanced security measures. There are currently no airlines under restrictions for large personal electronic devices. Airlines worldwide have implemented additional security measures that ultimately make the global aviation community more secure.”

The US government lifted the laptop ban as concern about the safety of PED’s in checked baggage heightened.  Counterterrorism analysts were puzzled as the same explosive detection technology is used for both hand and checked baggage and testing by FAA’s Fire Safety Branch  showed that PED’s packed in suitcases in the cargo hold could have serious consequences to aircraft.

At the security forum this month, Kelly detailed the reasoning behind the sanctions, stating that on his appointment to the position in January, he was informed that there was a very sophisticated threat.

"It was not only sophisticated but it was real, and it was targeted at certain airports," he said.

Just as importantly however, Kelly also learned that remote detonation of the device was not a possibility and direct access would have been required – hence allowing the PED’s to be placed into the hold.

Although the ban has now been lifted, Kelly insisted that there has been "no compromise" and security measures have been enhanced. He stated, "I am reasonably confident that we can detect the devices, given all of the things that we are requiring people to [do]," he says.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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