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often than not, employees are handed a Nest pension where they receive one annual paper statement a year, often to an out-of-date address, and no guidance on how to save for the future.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.

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 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 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.”

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. 

Amazon is known for being innovative and progressive in the digital and ecommerce space, but now they’re making strides in the human resources department too.

The online retailer juggernaut announced a pilot program where designated teams will be made up of part-time employees only.

The program, called Part-Time Team Initiative, allows employee teams to work 30-hours per week for 75% of their salary WITH full benefits. HR experts are referring to the concept as groundbreaking. The goal of the program, according to the company itself, is to recruit and retain talent and diversify the workforce.

These teams will be made up of current and new employees. Current employees will have to transfer from a current position to one of three very large teams being formed under the new test program. Amazon is already reporting a few dozen engineering and tech employees who are taking part in the program. These employees work 10am to 2pm, Monday through Thursday and can take advantage of flextime hours throughout the week.

However, a company spokesperson stated that there won’t be any kind of companywide change any time soon. This is a pilot program strictly created for learning to see if this kind of team can work. The goal is to see if these people are as productive, more productive or less productive during a 30-hour workweek versus 40-hour workweek.

This program sets itself apart from other companies who have run similar programs because these will be entire teams comprised of part-time employees. Similar studies have paired part-timers with full-timers.

HR experts are pondering whether this test is in response to a New York Times article published about a year ago calling the company “unforgiving” with “grueling” work schedules. Amazon has not confirmed or denied this.

TUC research revealed approximately one in eight men and women stop working before state pension age due to bad health or disability.

The report called, Postponing the pension: are we all working longer? finds that almost 500,000 workers who are within five years of state pension age have to leave the workplace for medical reasons. The report also shows a clear North – South divide. In the South West of England sickness and disability is only cited by one in 13 people who have left the workplace in the years approaching state pension age. In the North East however, the number rises to one in seven, proving a more significant health issue across northern regions of the UK.

Additionally, people who work in lower paying jobs like carers, cleaners and more manual jobs are twice as likely to stop working prior to retirement due to sickness and disability.

The TUC feels that raising the state pension age is far too simplistic of an approach to increase the number of people working later in life. Of course this criticism doesn’t come without possible solutions. The TUC feels there are multiple other ways to encourage older people to remain in the workforce including things like flexible work schedules, statutory entitlement and auto-enrolment expansion.

The TUC report was submitted to the Independent Review of State Pension Age and will be used to consider what will happen to the state pension after 2028.

An airline employee recently won a sex discrimination case against her employers, after being denied flexible hours when returning from maternity leave.

Emma Seville worked for Flybe airline as part of the cabin crew, for over a decade. Prior to going on maternity leave, she worked full time on a flexible schedule working any 22 days in a one-month period. After Seville gave birth to her son, she wanted to go back to work but requested a pre-arranged rota of 11 days each month. Seville asked for this special schedule because she was having difficulty finding nurseries or daycares for her child due to her unusual work situation. She felt that the updated schedule would remedy her issues. As an alternative, Seville also proposed job sharing. Both of these requests were denied by Flybe. Seville appealed the decision internally prior to taking her case to a tribunal. She claimed that the current arrangements for female cabin crew members were disadvantageous when compared to male counterparts.

Flybe responded by saying the request for flexible hours was definitely considered but that the scheduling would cause problems. The company added that there were fixed rota systems in place and shifts could be swapped between employees.

Seville won her legal claim for sex discrimination but lost the claim for flexible working hours. Human resource experts say the hearing is a fairly significant test case that could lead to flexible working schemes being adopted by female cabin-crew staff at other companies in the future. HR experts continue by explaining it will put all airlines on alert when it comes to making sure they are complying with principles laid down in this case to avoid any claims against them.

After hearing about research that suggests mothers with young children are less likely to be in work than men with children the same age, the TUC felt compelled to call on employers to offer greater flexibility for working mothers.

The TUC’s analysis of the Labour Force Survey Q2 2016 shows that on average, over 60 percent of mothers with children up to age four were in paid employment. While this number doesn’t appear too bad on its own, when you compare this to the 93 percent of fathers in paid employment with children of the same age, this number becomes far less impressive.

The research goes on to suggest the age of a female’s youngest child influences whether or not she works at all. Regional differences in the data also support certain theories. Maternal employment rates are influenced by such things as the cost of childcare, transport and housing, and access to quality jobs around the area they live in. For example, in London, the West Midlands and Yorkshire less than 60 percent of mothers with pre-school children are in work. When mothers in Wales, the South West and Scotland are analysed, this number increases to 70 percent.

HR experts suggest employers and the government need to do more for working mothers. Flexible scheduling is extremely important to working mothers and affordable childcare should be more attainable.

While the TUC analysis paints a fairly grim picture of the percentage of mothers in the workforce, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) also released some data showing 66.5 percent of single parents were in work between April and June of this year. This is a 22.7 percent increase since 1996.

Capita Employee Benefits, Foster Denovo Limited, LV= and Towry have partnered up to offer guidance and financial advice to members who are rapidly approaching retirement.

The service, coined At Retirement, was formed in response to the massive demand directly following the introduction of freedom and choice within pension schemes. The programme is being led by Rob Tinsley formerly of Aspire to Retire and is primarily targeting employers and trustees with defined contribution schemes.

Pension freedoms give members more choice when it comes to at-retirement solutions. Unfortunately for employees and scheme holders, advice has been few and far between for the mass market. This lack of direction and help is the catalyst for ill-informed decisions concerning long-term financial wellbeing. HR experts also explain that while employees may know that hiring someone to advise them on their retirement is beneficial in the long-run, the short-term fee is a large deterrent.  Managing Director of retirement solutions at LV=, John Perks, said that nearly half a million people retire each year without taking any kind of advice.

Human resource experts explain At Retirement lends employers the ability to offer advice services to their employees, ultimately helping protect their workers’ financial welfare well into retirement.

The programme is divided into three different tiers of advice. The first runs through LV= and is called non-advised. This tier is for members who have an understanding of what retirement strategy they want. In many cases, these members will probably want some kind of annuity purchase.

Tier number two is named robo-advice, also via LV=. This tier accommodates straightforward, medium sized savings and offers guidance in the form of telephone support from regulated advisors.

Finally, tier three is full advice. This tier runs through Foster Denovo or Towry and features face-to-face or telephone based advice. This is reserved for scheme holders with larger sums with more complexity, or for those who do not want to take advantage of online services.

The goal of At Retirement is really to help minimise risk and to help employers “demonstrate good governance” while offering “an enhanced retirement process” to employees. Human resource professionals also believe this kind of service will actually increase member engagement with their schemes.

For the first time in EAT history, the Employment Appeal Tribunal looked at the issue of ‘protected conversations’ in Faithorn Farrell Timms v Bailey.

Protected conversations were introduced in 2013 under section 111A of the Employment Rights Act. Human resource experts define these types of conversations as those that are intended to enable an employer and an employee to have confidential discussions about ending employment, where a dispute concerning the termination is nonexistent. In the event there is an existing dispute, the legal without prejudice rule might very well apply. In layman’s terms, this means that if there is an attempt to settle a dispute, these statements and discussions cannot be used as evidence in court.

In Faithorn Farrell Timms v Bailey, a part-time secretary in a law firm claimed her employer made it abundantly clear in 2014 that she would no longer be able to work her part-time hours. To maintain her employment, she would have to transition to full time. Bailey did not want this and initiated settlement discussions with the firm under the protected conversation rule. In early 2015, without prejudice letters were sent by her solicitors which included proposals for a settlement. The employer’s letters in reply were not marked without prejudice.

The settlement discussions proved unsuccessful and Bailey raised a grievance, referring to the contents of her without prejudice letters. The law firm didn’t ever question the inclusion of these letters and actually referred to them in the outcome of the grievance procedure.

Bailey ended up resigning and claimed constructive dismissal and sexual discrimination.

While Bailey’s employer never questioned whether any of the reported discussions and letters were admissible as evidence, this question did come up at the preliminary tribunal hearing. The employment tribunal decided the documentation pointing to the protected conversation and any without prejudice letters were not inadmissible. At this point, both parties appealed to the EAT.

The EAT ruled that the protected conversation rule actually protected the content of the discussions, as well as the fact that these discussions ever took place. Furthermore, there wasn’t anything in the legislation that even permitted the employer and the employee to ‘waive’ this confidentiality.

At first, the EAT found the discussions did not have to be disclosed to any third party thanks to the without prejudice rules. Unfortunately, the employer referencing contents of the communications and not objecting to Bailey doing the same, was enough to show the employer had by implication given up this privilege.

HR experts feel that protected conversations have been used by employers time and time again, especially when the employer has concerns about employee performance and this particular case should be encouraging to employers since it shows that confidentiality does exist.

A recent agreement between Nestle and GMB and Unite trade unions will cover over 7,000 United Kingdom employees and safeguard the future of the company’s career average defined benefit scheme.

The primary points of the package include:

• Career average defined benefit pension based on an 80th accrual for all existing members
• A salary cap for defined benefit pensionable earnings of £45,000 (per the consumer price index)
• Normal pension age linked to state age of retirement
• Closure of the scheme to new Nestle employees from July 1st
• Current Nestle employees who aren’t presently members of the defined benefit scheme get one last opportunity to join.

Although the agreement is still subject to trustee approval, members of the trade unions GMB and Unite were thrilled to accept the package after negotiating for a whole year. The deal includes a two-year three percent pay increase for production workers for 2016 and 2017. This is to help lessen the impact of the increased contributions for employees.

Many of the 7,600 employees affected work at the Nestle head office in Gatwick, while others work in York and Staverton amongst other areas. Nestle acknowledged that the package took quite some time to put together, but said they knew how important this would be to the lives of their employees and wanted to have ample comprehension on the situation.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that time spent travelling to and from home by employees who do not have a fixed working base should count towards time worked.

This landmark decision will affect how maximum weekly working hours and rest break entitlements are calculated.  It will only affect peripatetic workers, or those without a habitual workplace.  This ruling will not affect how commuting is treated for any other kind of worker.  Unfortunately for businesses, human resource experts predict this will mean the possibility of increased pay on behalf of employers since they will have to pay employees for their “drive time”.  The UK government has already vehemently expressed its concern over this.

This ECJ ruling directly correlates to Federacion de Servicios Privados v Tyco Integrated Security.  This case’s focus is regarding staff at a Spanish security company, but since the ruling covers the EU’s Working Time Directive, it also affects UK employers.

The TUC is absolutely elated with this ruling since it feels as though this will prevent “unscrupulous employers” from forcing workers into a 60-hour workweek.

General Secretary for the United Kingdom’s largest healthcare trade union said that he approves of this decision.  He welcomes the idea that home care workers will all be getting the true wages they deserve.

As with any other ruling, this decision is not without criticism.  The UK government has already expressed its feelings on the matter and the Institute of Directors has also slammed the ECJ for the ruling.  One member of the Institute released the following statement:

“The notion that the period mobile workers spend travelling between home and their first client in the morning must count as working time goes above and beyond the protections intended by the law.”

Towers Watson research is reporting that less than half of employers plan to offer a drawdown option as part of their pension plan.  Regardless of organisation plans, the survey also found that 87% of employers believe their staff will still want access to some or all of their pensions using the new drawdown flexibilities after the age of 55.

Some pension plans are reluctant to offer drawdown because many believe the management of drawdown is far too difficult, aside from the fact that there are governance issues and barriers to adoption.  Currently, many trust-based schemes are still targeting annuity purchase for their default.  Over half of trust-based schemes haven’t even rolled out targeted communications to members 55+ since these new pension rules came into effect.  HR experts warn that without communication, some people won’t know what their options really look like.

Ultimately, the ability to use drawdown is just as important as the option to purchase an annuity for many members.  Unfortunately, there are some obstacles that make it a bit more challenging to make the new drawdown rules work in practice, but change is inevitable.  Whether this change was rushed or not is irrelevant, it’s now time for employers to adapt.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that An Iraan, Texas oil field construction and services company, will pay $30,000 to settle a retaliation lawsuit.

The suit, filed in US District Court for the Western District of Texas, charged that Garrison Contractors, Inc. fired its only female roustabout after she reported being sexual harassed on the job in the field.

The company hired Elma Garza as a dump truck driver in January 2012.  Garza spent most of her time employed with the company as the only female oil field worker.  Garza did everything from fixing oil and gas leaks to digging ditches, all alongside her male counterparts and fellow employees. 

The suit claimed that throughout her employment, Garza was the victim of lewd comments about female organs and sex.  The suit further explains that when Garza formally reported the behavior of her male peers, the company fired her.

Aside from the settlement fee, the consent decree settling the lawsuit also requires the company to implement a written anti-retaliation policy that protects employees from adverse employment action for filing complaints.  The company must also conduct annual training for all officers, managers, gang pushers and roustabouts for three years regarding the law against retaliation in the workplace.  Finally, the company has to post an anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation notice.

A recently published TUC report revealed that young people’s failing long-term economic prospects will not be improved by cutting pensioner benefits in order to fund more public spending on younger people.

The publication titled, ‘Young against old? What’s really causing wealth inequality?’ found that the younger generation’s deteriorating prospects are due primarily to a combination of; increased university tuition fees, unemployment, poorer job opportunities, lower pay and a pretty consistent increase in housing prices.

Young people are often compared and contrasted with the older generation in these kinds of reports - an older generation which tends to have high levels of wealth.  This has left many human resource experts questioning the validity of certain report results.  This report, however, found that pensioners do not comprise the majority of the UK’s wealthiest households.  The TUC actually found there are wealth inequalities within different age groups as well, which makes sense.  Not all 60-80 year olds are wealthy, just like not all 20-30 year olds are poor.

The report did find patterns among different age groups that do offer up trends.  For example, workers in their 40’s and 50’s who are high earners and home-owners proved more likely to be wealthy. 

Ultimately, the report debunked the theory that wealth inequalities are strictly age driven.  Beyond differences in wealth by age bracket, ‘Young against old?’ found wealth variations by region and nation.  Again, certain HR experts wonder why a report even had to be performed in order to prove that wealth inequality exists, theoretically, in any kind of population segment.  For example, there are multiple tiers to poor just as there are multiple levels of wealth.

Thankfully, the researchers were able to clearly show that removing certain benefits from pensioners to give the younger generation an easier time would not fix the wealth gap that currently exists.  At the end of the day, at some point the government will have to step in and provide some sort of education.

Towers Watson is warning that a proposed revision to a European Directive could potentially make it harder for employees to review their long-term defined contribution pensions offers.  The revision, in light of ‘pension freedom’, requests that employers do not move employee’s existing savings to a new vehicle. 

These potential changes, which haven’t been approved or denied, could also hurt an employers’ ability to consolidate pensions schemes in any kind of merger or acquisition.

While the European Parliament and Council of Ministers are commenting on the Commission’s proposal for a revised Directive, many HR experts aren’t overly concerned that this revision will make it through to a final. 

The Commission already proposed that any bulk transfers of members across borders should require the approval of scheme members, or at the very least some kind of representative. 

If any kind of final Directive does contain these requested provisions, HR experts are urging authorities to provide the necessary clarity about who could count as a member’s representative(s).  Currently, it is not clear whether the trustees of a UK pension scheme could fill this role.

Research conducted by Retirement Advantage found that six percent of over 50’s have no plan to ever retire.

Although almost half of the respondents did state that they wanted to make sure they always had enough money to do the things they wanted to do, one in five said they were worried about losing the social aspect of work.  The same number said they were concerned about possibly being plagued by boredom!

In another report conducted by YouGov for Retirement Advantage, a majority of the workers who didn’t want to retire switched to part-time employment, whilst others opted to take an unpaid voluntary kind of position.

HR experts explain that it really comes down to quality of life for this age group.  Staying active and social is great for the mind.  Human resource professionals also declared that employees who work but don’t have to, can be some of the best employees an organisation has on staff.

The research shows that patterns are shifting.  It used to be that when a person hit retirement age, they simply retired.  Now, we’re seeing this happen in a more phased approach. Retirees expect to continue to work in some way or capacity beyond their traditional retirement age. The research also shows that the genuine interest in unpaid roles shows how important it is for this age group to make a contribution to society. 

It’s true that you can’t please everybody, but in the workplace it might be worth trying. What does and what doesn’t offend someone seems to change daily, but when it comes to workplace attire, management attorneys are claiming it should be more intuitive.
Casual Fridays come around but once a week and it’s what some employees look forward to. Workers come in wearing jeans and T-shirts with graphics or sayings because, after all, it’s casual Friday. One employee found himself in quite a predicament after being called out by management for wearing a T-shirt with a confederate flag on it.
Some human resource experts feel that if an employee is wearing a potentially offensive image that they should be sent home or told to cover or change the garment. Many courts feel the same way. “Regardless of the intent behind the employee’s decision to wear the shirt, several courts have held that coworkers wearing Confederate flag clothing can be a contributing factor in finding the existence of a racially hostile work environment”. 
The banning of the Confederate flag in the workplace is actually quite controversial. This “rebel flag” was flown by Navy ships in combat in the South Pacific during World War II. For some people, however, this flag is a symbol of slavery and resistance to integration.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has actually issued decisions reviving claims that employers who let workers wear shirts with the flag unlawfully permits race discrimination.
HR experts feel that at the end of the day employers should have two policies that regulate clothing in the workplace. One should be a personal appearance policy and the other should be an anti-harassment policy. Employees should understand that they are a reflection of the company during the workday and dress codes should always support the business operations.

The European Commission have just agreed to extend pension schemes’ exemption from centrally clearing over the counter derivatives under the European Markets and Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR), until 2017. Following the agreement, pension schemes that aren’t ready by the expiry of the clearing exemption will have some explaining to do.
The extension was announced on August 15. The Commission pointed out that schemes need to move along ahead of deadline and that three years is more than a sufficient amount of time.
Trustees now have a legal obligation to ensure timely confirmation, position reconciling, dispute resolution procedures, portfolio compression and reporting.
One very challenging area is current legislation that allows only for cash variation margin to be posted for derivatives. So far, Consultancy Europe Economics has been researching alternative systems for the EC, coming up with seven possible solutions.

Official figures reveal that most employees would rather settle disputes using the Acas Early Conciliation (EC) scheme than employment tribunals.
The report showed that over 17,000 employees used EC during the first three months after its launch on April 6th. Employees made over 16,000 enquiries to the service, while employers made 540. This high engagement can partly be attributed to the law requiring anyone considering an employment tribunal claim to contact Acas first.
In the month of April alone, 1,000 people per week contacted the service, increasing by another 600 in May and June.
Another reason for the high engagement could be because of the introduction of tribunal fees in July 2013. Human resource expertsexplain that many employees, especially the low paid ones, cannot afford the tribunal fees. Additionally, many employers are cooperating too. The new system is relieving the burden of tribunals and is helping to prevent claims from going all the way. 
This new, early conciliation is helping to resolve many workplace disputes without the need for claimants to go to an employment tribunal.

Despite having a considerable time off, one US District Court decision is suggesting that the termination of someone on leave for over one year may make a company vulnerable to claims of failure to accommodate and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case involved Rose Cook who worked with Morgan Stanley Smith Barney as a complex risk officer in downtown Houston. Cook was informed that she needed to improve her communication with a new boss. While this was all going on, Cook was diagnosed with premature ventricular contractions and general anxiety disorder. She decided she needed to take a leave of absence, which began on November 8, 2011. This was, coincidentally, the day before a scheduled meeting with her boss to improve the aforementioned communications. On November 9, the company decided that Cook should work at another location to improve communications, cross-train and learn new policies and procedures.
Instead of working at this different location, Cook thought it would be a better to remain on leave and also objected to the transfer.
On December 12, Cook’s primary care physician authorized her to work for four hours per day with no travel. She was authorized by her doctor to work at the main office location. When she returned to work, she was informed that she was reassigned to the new office. Cook was under the impression that this violated her physician’s order and she contacted her caseworker who instructed her to return home on medical leave.
Two months later, Cook’s primary care physician wrote a letter to her caseworker authorizing Cook to work on a part-time basis for three weeks and only at the downtown office “to eliminate stress and new challenges.”
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney’s executive director of human resources told one HR representative that the doctor’s request was “not an accommodation that a physician can or should request,” and instructed the HR representative not to make the modifications.

Four in 10 Americans will not use up their earned time off this year due to the fear of being replaced.
A new study called, Overwhelmed America: Why Don’t We Use Our Paid Time Off? revealed that coupled with work piling up, many Americans are afraid to take a vacation because of a lack of employer support and/or communication.
This completely contradicts the widespread acceptance of how important PTO time is to the health and happiness of employees. Forty percent of employees will actually leave vacation days on the table instead of using them. American workers are starting to adopt more and more of a martyr complex in order to show their worth.
One HR expert explains that some employees wear their lack of used vacation time as “a badge of honor”.
A cited reason for the fear of using PTO time is because many Americans are still mentally stuck in a recession. An overwhelming number of people lost their jobs when the economy was in a slump and it took, in some cases, years to become employed again. To prevent being laid off American employees will work to the bone to show that they aren’t replaceable.
The effects of a poor economy still prevail with one third of the respondents saying they can’t afford to use their PTO time even if they wanted.
This work martyr complex is reinforced by some company cultures as well. It starts from the top. If C level management doesn’t communicate the importance of PTO, employees will not see the importance in it either. Management, sometimes, sends mixed messages about taking time off which can actually further discourage it. Many senior business leaders have stated that they never, or very rarely, talk with employees about the benefits of taking time off. While this may be completely unintentional, the message is still sent and received that time off is probably frowned upon.
In cases of “use it or lose it” policies, five out of six workers say they plan on using most of their PTO by the end of the year. Unfortunately, 26% of workers reported working for a company that had a “use it or lose it” policy.

It may not necessarily matter where you went to school or what grades you got because at the end of an interview, it might just come down to attitude. The Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC) found that employers are placing a greater value on attitude than academic scores when recruiting young people.
The Job Outlooks survey asked employers about their hiring intentions for the upcoming quarter, as well as next year. Approximately 200 employers were surveyed and almost half of them said attitude was the most important factor when hiring a young person. A mere four percent of the employers cited specific academic milestones as an important factor when hiring.
Some human resources experts say that qualifications can be a great indicator of ability but attitude tends to show whether initiative exists.
These findings support research conducted last year by the UK Commission for Employment and Skills.   The UKCES found that 38% of employers actually rejected certain applicants because they lacked a “professional hard-working attitude”.
The REC’s survey did provide a very positive outlook for the job market. Many of the employers said they planned to increase their permanent staff in the next three months.
This is actually the best time to be a young person coming into the job market because of all the opportunities opening up. Employer hiring intentions are at a high and other employers are considering taking on more staff.

A fixed leave policy recently cost one company a hefty $1.35M in settlement fees.
Princeton HealthCare System, which operates several medical facilities, recently settled a disability discrimination lawsuit that all started due to a fixed leave policy that was in place.
The EEOC reported that Princeton’s leave tracking system only accounted for the requirements of the Family Medical Leave Act, commonly referred to as the FMLA, when handling any kind of worker on medical leave.
It was because of this that the EEOC sued for the termination of certain employees. The EEOC stated that these workers were not yet eligible for FMLA after having only a “few absences,” and stated that some employees were automatically terminated once they’d been out on FMLA leave for over 12 weeks. The EEOC claimed Princeton failed to seek out reasonable accommodations for employees who were absent for any kind of medical-related reasons.
The Commission proclaimed that these types of actions “robbed employees of rights they may have been entitled to” under a different act. The Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, may have actually protected some of the terminated employees from losing their jobs. The EEOC went on to explain how hardline fixed leave policies do not allow for reasonable accommodations under the ADA that may allow employees to return to work after any kind of medical leave.
In the settlement agreement, Princeton agreed to a myriad of things including:
No longer requiring workers returning from disability leave to present a fitness-for-duty certification explaining that they are able to return to work without any restrictions.
Not to subject any employee to progressive discipline for ADA-related absences.
The company also agreed to provide ADA-training for its workforce.
The $1.35M will be allotted to any worker who was unlawfully terminated under the former fixed-leave policy.
Human resource experts explain that while it may seem like the EEOC is trying to make an example out of Princeton, they are only trying to make employers aware of the responsibilities they have when it comes to their employees and their continued employment.