In a case that highlights the intricacies of holiday approval and workplace communication, Gary Maloney, a used car salesman, has been awarded €12,500 by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) after being unfairly dismissed by Bill Griffin Motors. The dismissal stemmed from an unapproved holiday in Portugal, bringing to light the importance of clear communication and fair employment practices.

Gary Maloney requested annual leave approximately three months in advance, seeking approval from the company's accountant. He was directed to discuss the matter with the Managing Director, Dave Griffin. Despite Mr Maloney's attempts to communicate his holiday plans due to a pre-booked trip with no cancellation policy, the situation remained unresolved.

Returning from his holiday in October 2022, Mr Maloney discovered a colleague at his desk and learned that he was considered absent without permission. The company recorded his employment as having ended on October 8th, 2022, without any prior investigation or notice of the job being at risk. The dismissal left Mr Maloney out of work until March 2023, estimating his losses at over €19,000.

The company, represented by Hugh O’Donnell BL, argued that Mr Maloney had resigned from his position, dismissing his claims as frivolous and vexatious. The firm contended that it had informed Mr Maloney of the need to adjust his holiday dates but received no written request. Allegedly, attempts were made to discover the reason for his absence on October 10th, 2022, leading to the towing of a car he left in a neighbouring premises.

The WRC adjudication officer - Davnet O’Driscoll - acknowledged conflicting evidence but ruled the dismissal as unfair on both procedural and substantive grounds. While the company presented letters referring to unauthorized leave and seeking resignation, Mr Maloney denied receiving such communications. The lack of investigation and disciplinary procedures after his return from leave contributed to the ruling.

Despite Mr Maloney estimating losses at over €19,000, the WRC awarded him total compensation of €12,500, considering his contribution to the dismissal.

The case underscores the importance of transparent communication, adherence to workplace policies and fair dismissal procedures. Unresolved matters concerning leave requests can lead to misunderstandings and a in this case, an unfair dismissal claim.

The UK government has initiated a consultation process on the reintroduction of Employment Tribunal fees, almost seven years after the Supreme Court ruled them unlawful. This move has sparked debates around access to justice, affordability and the impact on the number of claims brought before the Employment Tribunals (ET) and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

The ET and EAT were established to offer a straightforward and accessible platform for individuals to resolve workplace disputes. These tribunals operate with a focus on informality, enabling users to present their cases without the need for legal representation. However, from July 2013 to July 2017, the government introduced tribunal fees, categorizing claims into 'Type A' and 'Type B'. Type A claims (which covered simple disputes such as unpaid holiday pay) attracted an issue fee of £160 and a hearing fee of £230, totalling £390 in fees. Type B claims (which covered more complex disputes such as discrimination) attracted an issue fee of £250 and a hearing fee of £950, totalling £1200 in fees. The EAT attracted a £400 issue fee and a £1200 hearing fee, totalling £1600 in fees. The introduction led to a substantial fall in the number of claims, with cases falling by 53% in the 12 months after the fee change.

In 2017, the Supreme Court, in R (Unison) v The Lord Chancellor, declared the tribunal fees unlawful. The court found that the fees were practically unaffordable, rendering pursuing non-monetary and low-value claims futile and irrational. The fee structure was also deemed indirectly discriminatory against women and individuals with protected characteristics. Since the fees were quashed, there has been a notable increase in the number of cases, reaching around 33,000 or 39% in 2022/23.

The newly proposed fees are significantly lower, with claimants and appellants paying £55 to issue any claim at the Employment Tribunal or the Employment Appeal Tribunal, respectively. Unlike the previous regime, no hearing fee will be incurred under the government's proposals. The key principles guiding these proposed fees are affordability, proportionality and simplicity.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) asserts that a fee of £55 is generally affordable for claimants and appellants. A Help with Fees (HwF) remission scheme has been introduced, providing financial support to individuals with low income and minimal savings. The scheme's eligibility criteria have been revised to offer greater financial assistance, ensuring those most in need can access justice.

The government emphasizes that fees should be proportionate to the remedy sought, aiming to discourage irrational and futile claims. This principle aligns with the Supreme Court's 2017 judgment, which criticised the previous fee structure for exceeding the value of remedies sought in many cases.

Based on 2022-23 volumes, the government estimates that the proposed fees could generate between £1.3 million and £1.7 million annually from 2025-26 onwards. The consultation suggests an implementation date in November 2024.

The reintroduction of Employment Tribunal fees has sparked a contentious debate surrounding access to justice and the impact on the volume of cases brought before the tribunals. The government's emphasis on affordability, proportionality and simplicity aims to strike a balance between ensuring access to justice and preventing frivolous claims.

In a controversial move, Capita has joined the ranks of employers withdrawing from the Real Living Wage scheme, citing significant annual increases as the primary reason for its decision. This decision has raised eyebrows and prompted the Communication Workers' Union (CWU) to consider industrial action, highlighting the potential impact on hard-working employees during an already challenging cost-of-living crisis.

Capita - a prominent outsourcing company - expressed reluctance in withdrawing from the Real Living Wage scheme after facing a second consecutive substantial annual increase. The company argued that employees currently receiving the Real Living Wage, recommended by the Living Wage Foundation and adjusted to reflect the cost of living, would still earn more than the upcoming national living wage of £11.44 in April. They also assured that employees working on contracts obliging the organisation to pay the Real Living Wage would continue to receive the stipulated rate.

Whilst the company emphasized its commitment to its people and hinted at a possible future re-evaluation of the decision - framing it as part of an ongoing review of the company's cost base - the estimated impact on employees is substantial, with most workers potentially losing around £850 a year due to their withdrawal from the Real Living Wage scheme. This financial setback comes despite Capita reporting a profit of £33.1 million in 2023 and its CEO Jon Lewis and CFO Tim Weller earning a combined total of £2.92 million during the same period.

The CWU, representing Capita workers on contracts with BBC, Virgin Media O2 and Tesco Mobile, expressed its astonishment at Capita's decision. The union announced plans to consult its members about balloting for industrial action, citing the potential harm to employees' living standards during what they deemed the worst cost-of-living crisis of the century.

The Living Wage Foundation, disappointed by Capita's decision, emphasized the importance of the independently calculated Real Living Wage, which is voluntarily paid by over 14,000 organisations. Despite economic challenges, the foundation highlighted the continued growth of businesses joining the movement, with over 3,000 new accreditations in 2023 alone.

Capita's decision follows closely on the heels of BrewDog's withdrawal from the Living Wage scheme, citing the need to make "hard decisions" after a trading loss in 2023. Both cases underscore the challenges faced by businesses in balancing financial considerations and their commitment to fair wages.

In a new collaboration, Maven Clinic - the world's largest virtual clinic for women and families - and the British Standards Institution (BSI) - the business improvement and standards company - have joined forces to offer industry-leading menopause support to BSI's global workforce. The initiative, aligned with BSI's workplace standard launched in May, underscores the company's commitment to fostering inclusive workplaces and reducing menopause-related productivity losses. This partnership is set to transform the landscape of workplace menopause support, addressing a critical need in the global workforce.

Through Maven's Menopause and Ongoing Care program, BSI employees now have 24/7 unlimited access to a dedicated team of Care Advocates and menopause specialists. This diverse group includes experts such as OBGYNs, nutritionists, mental health providers, pelvic floor physical therapists and career coaches. The programme also provides clinically sound education and offers provider-moderated drop-in groups to support employees throughout their menopause journey. Virtual care is available in over 35 languages, delivered via video or message chat.

The partnership with Maven Clinic aligns with BSI's workplace standard on menopause, menstrual health and menstruation (BS 30416), which was introduced globally for free in May. The standard outlines straightforward changes designed to create a more inclusive and productive work environment. BSI Director of Sectors - Anne Hayes - emphasized the importance of providing comprehensive menopause support, citing the company's Second Glass Ceiling report, which revealed that 72% of women desire employer action to support women experiencing menopausal symptoms. The report also drew attention to the fact that a fifth of women globally expect to retire before the official retirement age, with menopause-related health issues cited as a barrier to remaining in the workforce by 20% of respondents. The collaboration between BSI and Maven Clinic seeks to address these challenges head-on, providing a model for effective workplace menopause care.

While physical manifestations of menopause, such as hot flushes, are widely recognised, the psychological effects are often under-acknowledged and misdiagnosed. Memory loss, low self-esteem, disturbed sleep, poor concentration and feelings of dread, anxiety and rage are common symptoms experienced by individuals going through menopause. The partnership aims to raise awareness about these issues and ensure that appropriate support is provided to address both the physical and psychological aspects of menopause.

BSI's collaboration with Maven Clinic represents a significant step forward in addressing the challenges faced by women navigating menopause in the workforce. By providing comprehensive menopause support, including virtual care in multiple languages, the initiative not only enhances employee well-being but also contributes to a more inclusive and productive work environment.

Chancellor Jeremy Hunt's recent two-pence cut to National Insurance (NI) contributions - effective from January 6th - has been hailed as a welcome relief for millions of employees across the UK. However, as the dust settles on this Autumn Statement decision, concerns have been raised about the potential repercussions for individual finances and the future funding of the State Pension, particularly in relation to the Triple Lock policy.

The Class 1 NI deductions were reduced from 12 percent to 10 percent, translating to an estimated tax cut of over £450 for an average worker earning £35,400 in the 2024/25 financial year. Even employees with a higher income, like those earning £50,000, stand to save approximately £749 in National Insurance after the change.

While many welcome the immediate boost to take-home pay, Steven Cameron - Pension Director at Aegon - has cautioned that the NI cut could have broader implications for the funding of state pensions. Cameron emphasizes that, unlike income tax, NI operates differently and its reduction does not impact pensions tax relief.

Cameron acknowledges the short-term relief the NI cut offers to the cost of living challenge but raises concerns about the potential impact on the state pension, which relies heavily on NI funds. He notes that today's state pensions are funded by the National Insurance contributions of today's workers. With a reduction in NI receipts, there is a risk of creating a gap in the funding required to meet the 8.5 percent increase in the state pension slated for April – a figure almost double the current rate of inflation.

"Our ageing population, combined with the current triple-lock mechanism, means the costs of state pensions are rising sharply. Reducing NI contributions, their primary source of funding, adds to the challenge, potentially requiring alternative state pension funding sources from general taxation in the future," warns Cameron.

The triple-lock commitment, which sees the state pension increase annually in April by the highest of either wage growth, inflation, or 2.5 percent, is a key element in the current pension system. Cameron suggests that controlling state pension costs may involve contentious measures such as breaking the triple-lock or accelerating the increase in the state pension age.

"There are two key ways of controlling the costs of the state pension in the future. One is to carefully control the amount individuals receive, which is why there is a major debate around whether the triple lock, and the generous increases it can generate, is sustainable. Another would be to increase the state pension age more quickly than currently planned," explains Cameron.

However, he points out the challenges associated with raising the state pension age, including the impact on individuals unable to work until later ages and the disproportionate effect on those with lower life expectancies, often from less privileged backgrounds.

As the government faces tough decisions regarding the sustainability of the state pension system, the debate intensifies over how to strike the right balance between providing for current pensioners and ensuring the financial stability of future generations. The implications of Chancellor Hunt's NI cut may extend far beyond immediate take-home pay, shaping the landscape of retirement funding and policy for years to come.

Craft beer giant BrewDog has stirred controversy by withdrawing from the voluntary Living Wage scheme, leading to outrage among employees and campaign groups.

The company, known for its commitment to progressive employment practices, has decided to hire new staff at the government's national living wage, a move criticised as abandoning its principles. This decision has sparked debates on the importance of fair wages, corporate responsibility and the impact of financial challenges on ethical commitments.

BrewDog, founded in 2007 by James Watt and Martin Dickie, had been a signatory of the voluntary Living Wage scheme since 2015. This scheme - recommended by the Living Wage Foundation - ensures that employees are paid a rate that reflects the true cost of living. However, in a recent letter to staff, the company announced a departure from this commitment, stating that new hires would now be paid the government's national living wage of £10.42, rising to £11.44 in April.

BrewDog attributed its decision to financial challenges, citing a trading loss of £24 million in 2023, despite a robust performance during the Christmas period. The company emphasised the need for "hard decisions" to maintain financial stability and return to profitability. BrewDog highlighted previous efforts to support its workforce, such as abolishing zero-hours contracts and implementing unique benefits like 'pawternity' leave and paid sabbaticals.

The announcement sparked immediate backlash from employees and campaign groups. Punks with Purpose - a campaign group of current and former employees - accused BrewDog of abandoning its principles, citing the real living wage as a "cornerstone" of the company's identity and stating: "This real-terms pay cut for hard-working front line staff proves there is no principle too dearly held for them to abandon”. The Unite union's hospitality arm called the decision "outrageous" amidst a severe cost of living crisis, stressing the importance of fair wages during challenging times.

BrewDog's decision not to increase pay for bar workers in London - who will continue to earn £11.95 per hour - drew specific criticism. The company's justification for this decision, rooted in financial challenges, was met with scepticism. Critics argue that this move contradicts BrewDog's previous claims that their "crew are their most important resource" and that fair pay is one of their "core beliefs."

BrewDog defended its decision, asserting that despite the challenges in the hospitality sector, staff outside London would receive a 4.95% increase in base pay, and those in London would be paid 4.5% above the National Living Wage. The company highlighted its commitment to doing the best for its people and drew attention to their benefits package that surpasses industry averages.

The recent demotion of the government's Minister for Disabled People has sparked outrage among disability charities, with many expressing concerns about the implications for disabled workers. The move, which saw the previous minister, Tom Pursglove, replaced by Mims Davies, has been criticised for downgrading the role to an undersecretary position within the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

Charities such as the Business Disability Forum and Disability Rights UK have decried the demotion of the disability minister's role, calling it a retrograde step. The downgrading of the position to an under-secretary post, combined with Davies' additional responsibilities, has raised questions about the government's dedication to promoting the rights and well-being of disabled individuals in the workforce.

Diane Lightfoot, CEO of the Business Disability Forum, emphasized the need for senior representation of disabled people in government. She argued that for the government to fulfil its commitment to getting more disabled people into employment, there should be someone at the cabinet level who truly understands the barriers faced by disabled individuals both in accessing job opportunities and within the workplace.

The reshuffle raised concerns among disability groups when the role was left vacant for seven days, marking the longest gap without a minister in the post in 30 years - according to disability charity Scope. Zofia Bajorek from the Institute for Employment Studies expressed doubt about the government's commitment to people with disabilities, particularly in light of the employment and pay gaps that persist.

The demotion of the disability minister's role is seen by some as a contradiction to the government's stated goals of increasing employment opportunities for disabled individuals, especially considering recent policies criticized for potentially removing benefits if individuals do not find work.

The Trade Union Congress (TUC) highlighted a growing wage disparity between non-disabled and disabled workers, further underscoring the importance of strong advocacy for disabled individuals within the government. Fazilet Hadi, Head of Policy at Disability Rights UK, criticized the government's approach to the appointment, citing the continuing employment and pay gaps, delays in the Access to Work scheme and a lack of action on reasonable adjustments and mandatory disability workforce monitoring.

In response to the backlash, a government spokesperson defended Mims Davies, stating that she would help disabled people realise their potential at work and tear down barriers for their success. However, disability charities - including the Business Disability Forum and Disability Rights UK - called on the Prime Minister to reverse the decision and prioritise disability inclusion.

The downgrading of the Minister for Disabled People role, combined with the delay in appointment and the broader challenges faced by disabled workers, has ignited a heated debate about the government's commitment to addressing the needs and concerns of this demographic. As disability charities continue to push for more robust representation and policies that genuinely support disabled individuals, the government's actions in the coming months will no doubt be under close scrutiny.

In a recent employment tribunal case, Chris Palmer, a candidate for an HR Manager role at AIMS Markets - a digital capital markets division of the AIMS group - lost a race and sex discrimination case. Palmer claimed that he was not selected for the position due to direct discrimination against him as a white person and / or as a man.

The tribunal, however, ruled in favour of AIMS Markets, stating that the company's aim to improve diversity did not indicate an intention to discriminate against white men.

AIMS Markets, founded in early 2017 by CEO Andrew Clover, experienced rapid growth in 2020. By mid-2021, with only 12 employees and no internal HR post, the company decided to recruit a full-time HR manager. Chris Palmer was among the few selected for a pre-screening interview, during which he claims Managing Director Michael Jones expressed the company's desire to hire "fewer white men."

Palmer went through a pre-screening interview in July 2021, conducted by Michael Jones. During the conversation, Jones mentioned the company's objective of building diversity and expressed a desire to hire "fewer white men." Despite this, Palmer was considered a serious candidate and progressed to the first interview. However, after the first interview in August 2021, concerns were raised about Palmer's seniority, communication style, and salary expectations.

Following his rejection, Palmer alleged that his failure to secure the job was based on his ethnicity and gender. He claimed that Jones had openly stated the company's intention to hire "fewer white men." Palmer also raised concerns about the interview process, accusing the company of merely "going through the motions."

The employment tribunal, led by Judge Tamara Lewis, dismissed Palmer's claims of race and sex discrimination. The panel acknowledged that AIMS Markets aimed to improve diversity but concluded that this did not indicate an intention to discriminate against white men. The judge stated that it is not concerning for an employer to discuss diversity with a candidate for an HR position and aspiring to increase diversity does not imply discriminatory hiring practices.

Palmer presented statistics indicating that the company had hired more men than women since his job was advertised. He suggested that the company had started a process of hiring "fewer men," which was then "reversed" after he raised his discrimination claim. However, the panel found against this argument as they and stated it would be “incredible” that Jones would openly declare an intention to discriminate during an interview.

In this case, the employment tribunal ruled in favour of AIMS Markets, stating that the company's aspiration to be less dominated by white men did not translate into discriminatory hiring practices. The decision underscores the importance of distinguishing between a company's diversity goals and discriminatory actions during the recruitment process. Top of Form

In a groundbreaking move, Lidl GB, the German discount supermarket chain, has set a new standard for family-friendly workplace policies in the UK. Effective from 1st January 2024, Lidl has doubled its paid maternity and adoption leave to an impressive 28 weeks, making it the first supermarket in the country to offer such an extensive benefit. This enhancement goes beyond industry norms and establishes Lidl as a leader in prioritising the well-being of its employees.

Stephanie Rogers - Chief Human Resources Officer at Lidl GB - expressed the company's commitment to supporting colleagues. In a statement, she said,

“We’re deeply committed to supporting our colleagues, not just in their professional lives but also through personal milestones and challenges.”

This move comes after a year of close engagement with employees to better understand their needs, especially those balancing work and family life. The result is a comprehensive set of family leave policies that aim to create a supportive and inclusive workplace, solidifying Lidl's ambition to be a first-choice employer.

One of the notable features of Lidl's enhanced family leave policies is the extension of full pay for over six months during maternity or adoption leave. The move is seen as a benchmark for the industry, encouraging other companies to follow suit and prioritise the well-being of their workforce.

Additionally, Lidl has introduced paid leave for colleagues undergoing fertility treatment. This groundbreaking policy allows employees two full days of paid leave per treatment cycle, with no limit to the number of cycles, demonstrating a commitment to supporting employees on their fertility journey.

Recognising the emotional toll of pregnancy loss, Lidl has introduced five days of paid leave for individuals affected by pregnancy loss prior to 24 weeks, inclusive of partners. This compassionate approach acknowledges the need for time and support during difficult moments in employees' lives.

Expanding beyond family-related policies, Lidl has also increased its Compassionate Leave policy to five days, reflecting a commitment to supporting employees facing various personal challenges.

In a move towards creating an even more inclusive workplace, Lidl is in the process of becoming accredited as a menopause-friendly employer. This initiative includes the introduction of various measures, such as menopause champions across the business and a menopause community group to provide support for colleagues affected by menopause symptoms.

Lidl's has seen rapid market share growth in the past year. According to market research firm Kantar, Lidl held a 7.8% share of the grocery market in November, up from 7.4% a year prior. The company's emphasis on supporting its workforce aligns with a growing trend among consumers who are increasingly drawn towards companies that prioritise their employees' welfare.

In a surprising shift, Nationwide has informed its 13,000 staff members, initially promised flexible working, that they will be required to return to the office for at least two days a week from early next year. This announcement comes as a significant change to the building society's "work anywhere" policy introduced during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the pandemic, Nationwide took a pioneering stance with its "work anywhere" policy, assuring staff members outside its branches that they would not be compelled to return to the office. This move was aimed at putting employees in control of their work environment, emphasizing social contact, collaboration and creativity as reasons to maintain office spaces.

However, with the appointment of Debbie Crosbie as Nationwide's first female chief executive at the end of 2021, a shift in the organisation's approach to remote work has emerged. The new policy - agreed upon with the Nationwide Group Staff Union - mandates most staff to work in the office for at least 40% of their contract, equivalent to two days a week for full-time employees.

Although the policy is set to take effect from 1st January 2024, a transition period has been established until 1st April 2024, allowing staff who have undergone major lifestyle changes - such as moving homes - to adjust. Employees are also given the option to apply for exceptions to the policy.

The abrupt change in policy has sparked dissatisfaction among employees, with some expressing strong opposition. One employee interviewed by the BBC noted that those who are angered are extremely so. The discrepancy between the initial promise of not forcing employees back to the office and the current requirement has created tension within the workforce.

Nationwide has stated that the society will be monitoring data on office access to understand site utilisation and identify non-compliance with the new requirement. However, they have assured staff that this data will only be used for discussions and not as an absolute measure of compliance.

Debbie Crosbie acknowledged the discontent among employees but emphasized that Nationwide would continue to support various flexible working options, including part-time hours and job sharing. The assurance of flexibility seeks to balance the organisation's needs for office collaboration with the employees' desire for a work environment that accommodates their individual circumstances.