Tag Archive: unfair

  • Employment Law Newsletter – September 2019

    Posted on Sunday September 1st, 2019

    Cases:

    Other news:

    Unfair Dismissal: Employee Shareholder Status not altered by subsequent service agreement

    In Barrasso v New Look Retailers Limited UKEAT/0079/19 the EAT had to consider how ‘employee shareholder status’ is terminated, as it is not provided for under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘ERA’). The concept of ‘employee shareholder status’ was introduced in 2013. It applies to those who are employed by a company in which they are issued £2,000 worth of fully paid up shares, having first agreed to be an employee shareholder and received information about the status, its rights and independent legal advice. Having the status means they retain some key employment rights but give up others (in return for the shares), such as the right to claim unfair dismissal or receive a statutory redundancy payment. S.205A of the ERA prescribes how one achieves this status but it silent on how it is terminated.

    Mr Barrasso was employed as UK Managing Director by New Look until it was sold to another company and he was offered 7,000 shares in the parent company if he signed an Employee Shareholder Agreement (and met the criteria under the ERA), which he did. He was reassured by side letter (signed as a deed between the parties) that he would receive contractual benefits equal to the statutory employment rights he was giving up. He subsequently signed a new director’s service agreement (to standardise terms for all the directors) as a deed. This agreement contained a ‘complete agreement clause’ which purported to preserve the effect of the side letter (not mentioning the Employee shareholder agreement), whilst superseding all other agreements.

    Believing that his employee shareholder status had been terminated by the service agreement when Mr Barrasso’s employment was terminated he brought a claim for unfair dismissal. The tribunal dismissed his claim on the basis that the service agreement made no reference to the employee shareholder status – therefore did not supersede it – and the side letter meant the statutory rights had been removed in favour of his contractual rights. He appealed to the EAT, who agreed with the tribunal’s findings. They also looked at how the status could have been terminated practically-speaking, given that the ERA is silent on this, citing examples such as: a new contradictory contract, or an agreement to sell back the shares. It was clear to the EAT however, that the intention of the parties was not to alter Mr Basrrasso’s employee shareholder status by signing his service agreement.

    Holiday pay: Part-year workers not subject to pro rata reduction

    The Court of Appeal has overturned the decision of an employment tribunal (Harpur Trust v Brazel [2019] EWCA Civ 1402), finding that it should not have read words into reg.16 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal had been wrong to read it as if it meant the annual leave entitlement of ‘part-year workers’ (people who work only part of the year) on permanent contracts should be capped at 12.07% of the annualised hours. The Court accepted that ECJ rulings may allow employers to use the Working Time Directive to pro rate the annual leave entitlements of part-year workers to that of full-year workers, but member states may implement better arrangements. There is no requirement in the Working Time Regulations to pro rate holiday pay for part-time employees to ensure that full-time employees were not treated less favourably, it is simply a protection for part-time workers to not to be treated less favourably than full-time workers.

    There is a lesson here: employers who employ the 12.07% approach to pay holiday to staff on zero hours permanent contracts should consider their potential exposure and their options. The calculation exercise required by regulation 16 of the WTR 1998, which involves identifying a week’s pay and multiplying it by 5.6 weeks, is straightforward and should be followed, even if it results in part-year workers receiving a higher proportion of their annual earnings as holiday pay (in this case, 17.5%). How the 5.6 weeks’ holiday entitlement itself should be calculated for part-year workers remains unclear, however.  As a direct result of this case, BEIS has removed its holiday pay calculator from its holiday pay guidance for workers without fixed hours or pay. BEIS are currently reviewing this.

    Worker status: Out of hours GP is a worker despite using limited company

    In Community Based Care Health Ltd v Narayan UKEAT/0162/18, Community Based Care Health Ltd (‘CBCH’)  provided out of hours GPs to the NHS (each of whom had to be fully qualified and competent), and Dr Narayan provided her services as a GP through CBCH for a number of years. She worked a regular shift pattern but did not need CBCH’s permission to take leave or work elsewhere so there was no mutuality of obligation. She did provide her own equipment and indemnity insurance, and had to work personally for the company and could not send a preferred substitute instead. CBCH audited the services of the GPs it provided to comply with its NHS contracts. Dr Narayan began to use a limited company of her own to receive her payments but never informed CBCH of this fact, merely updated her bank details.

    Following an issue with some telephone advice Dr Narayan had provided and a claim that she had unjustifiably swapped duties on short notice, CBCH decided it was no longer going to offer her work. Dr Narayan brought claims of unfair dismissal, race and sex discrimination, breach of contract and unpaid holiday pay. CBCH claimed she was self-employed and neither an employee nor a “worker”. The tribunal disagreed.

    The judge found that Dr Narayan was a worker under s.230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, despite the fact that she had used a limited company to receive payments for over a year without CBCH’s knowledge. CBCH had tried to argue that this had led it to unwittingly become one Dr Narayan’s company’s clients under the ‘undisclosed principal’ doctrine (i.e. if A makes a contract with Z in A’s own name, it is open to B at a later date to assert that the contract was made by A on B’s behalf and that B is the contracting party. This means that the resulting contract is between B and Z.) CBCH claimed that therefore it was contracting with Dr Narayan’s company, and not her. This was dismissed from the appeal because it had not been argued at first hand, but in any event the fact that the contract required a competent and suitably qualified doctor precluded a company from being the contracting party. Further, the judge found that the decision in Suhail v Herts Urgent Care UKEAT/0416/11 was not a good precedent he was bound to follow in this case, distinguishing it on the basis that Dr Suhail positively marketed his services to other clients. Dr Narayan, on the other hand, worked for one provider for a number of years on a regular shift pattern. The judge also found the evidence suggested Dr Narayan had been integrated into CBCH’s business. The EAT upheld the tribunal judge’s decisions and found no error of law.

    Disability Discrimination: Tribunal must address all four limbs of the definition of disability

    In Parnaby v Leicester City Council UKEAT/0025/19/BA Mr Parnaby suffered depression brought about by work-related stress and was dismissed because of his long-term sickness absence due to work related stress (a capability issue). Mr Parnaby claimed this dismissal was in fact disability discrimination and/or potentially unfair. The tribunal found him not to be a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“the Act”) though it did accept that he suffered an impairment that had a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities but held this was not long-term. In particular, the tribunal noted that Mr Parnaby had suffered work related stress for six months, but that it had ceased following his dismissal, therefore the effect was not ‘long-term’ (i.e. 12 months or more) for the purposes of paragraph 2 Schedule 1 of the Act. Mr Parnaby appealed.

    The EAT allowed the appeal. It held that the tribunal had erred in not addressed all four limbs of the definition of disability contained in the Act. Mr Parnaby had suffered depression brought about by work-related stress which affected his ability to carry out his day-to-day activities – his impairment. The act of discrimination claimed was the dismissal. At that time, his impairment had not lasted for 12 months (s.2(1)(a) of Sch1 to the Act) and was therefore not ‘long-term’. However, the tribunal considered that by removing the source of his impairment (his job)  then the likely future impairment and its impacts would cease. The EAT held that the tribunal should have looked at whether it was likely to last twelve months or might recur in the future (i.e. could well happen = more probable than not). It was not for the tribunal to make assumptions about the time-limited nature of his impairment. On this basis the claim was remitted back to tribunal to be reheard. 

    Harassment: Conduct that creates an offensive or humiliating environment

    In Raj v Capita Business Services Limited & Ward EAT0074/19/LA the EAT considered the first tribunal’s dismissal of Mr Raj’s claims of unwanted conduct either of a sexual nature or unwanted conduct relating to his sex, pursuant to s.26 of the Equality Act 2010 (the “Act”). The issue was that the claimant had felt uncomfortable when his female manager massaged his shoulders in their open plan office.  Whilst the tribunal found this to be unwanted conduct which created an offensive environment for him, it found that on balance, the evidence provided brought them to the conclusion that whilst the conduct was unwise and uncomfortable but not related to gender, but more likely due to misguided encouragement. This part of the claim failed.

    On appeal, the EAT considered the two-stage burden of proof test set out by s.136 of the Act and explained in Igen v Wong [2005] ICR 931. The first stage is that the claimant prove facts from which the tribunal could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that the respondent committed an unlawful act of discrimination. The second part is only applicable if the first stage is met, and then puts the burden of proof onto the respondent who must prove he/she did not commit that unlawful act. The EAT agreed with the tribunal’s finding that in this case, the claimant fulfilled stage one – it was agreed that there was conduct that was unwanted, thereby producing “an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for him”. However, the remaining issue for stage two was whether this conduct related to the claimant’s gender. The tribunal found the evidence to show a prima facie case that this conduct related to his gender to be very limited. The appeal was on the basis that the tribunal had erred in law by not approaching the test properly but the EAT did not agree; the burden of proof had not shifted to the respondent and, in any event, the explanation given by the respondent had been accepted.

    Legal Advice Privilege: Waiving privilege does not mean you can cherry-pick what you disclose

    This is a warning case to employers involved in litigation. In Kasongo v Humanscale UK Ltd UKEAT/0129/19 the claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination related to pregnancy and maternity. Part of the employer’s strategy was to waive its legal advice privilege (i.e. communications between a client and their solicitor which are confidential and come into existence for the purpose or giving or receiving advice about what should prudently or sensibly be done in the relevant legal context) because certain documents arguably demonstrated that it did not know about the claimant’s pregnancy at the time it was considering dismissing her. The documents comprised a draft dismissal letter prepared by the solicitors from which the solicitors notes and comments had been redacted (it was agreed that the letter itself was not legally privileged, but the redacted parts were) and two earlier documents. The issue was whether the disclosure of the two earlier documents meant that the redacted parts were no longer protected by privilege, and therefore if the tribunal had erred in its decision as to which documents were protected by legal advice privilege.

    The EAT held that the tribunal had erred in failing to address or rule on one of the three documents. All three documents were part of the same transaction of providing legal advice about the dismissal of the claimant and, given the nature and purpose of the disclosure, the EAT held that fairness required that the redacted part of the letter concerning the reason for the claimant’s dismissal also be disclosed. The reason being that it would be unfair to allow the respondent who had waived privilege in relation to the other two documents not to reveal those redacted parts of the dismissal letter which related to the reason for dismissal. Cherry-picking the parts one discloses is therefore impermissible. The appeal was allowed and the EAT ordered that the redactions be removed and the full letter be included in the trial bundle for evidence at the hearing.

    Other news:

    Information Commissioner’s Office: Brexit hub

    The ICO has put together a ‘Brexit hub’ containing checklists, FAQs and guidance to help organisations of every size in case prepare for a no-deal Brexit. A good place to stay up to date with how your business manages its data protection duties. You can also sign up to their service to receive regular emails which will let you know about any updates to the guidance.

    Data Protection: Subject Access Requests and Individual Rights – timescales changed

    In August, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on a Dutch case which considered timescales under Regulation No 1182/71. Following this ruling, the Information Commissioner’s Office has updated their guidance on timescales for responding to subject access requests (SAR), and other individual rights requests.

    The effect of the ruling is that the timescale has now changed to reflect the day of receipt as ‘day one’, as opposed to the day after receipt. For example, a SAR received on 3 September should be responded to by 3 October.

    Modern Slavery: Updated guidance, referral and assessment forms available from Home Office

    Following recent reforms made to the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) (a government framework for identifying and referring potential victims of modern slavery and ensuring they receive the appropriate support), the Home Office issued new Modern slavery victims: referral and assessment forms. The forms allow staff at designated First Responders Organisations to refer potential victims of modern slavery or human trafficking to the NRM.

    The recent reforms to the NRM include:

    • The Home Office created a single, expert unit to handle all cases referred to it to handle decision making about whether somebody is a victim of modern slavery. This replaces (and is completely separate from) the case management units in the National Crime Agency and UK Visas and Immigration.
    • All negative Conclusive Grounds decisions will now be reviewed by an independent panel of experts, to increase the scrutiny such cases receive.
    • The NRM process will be supported by a new digital system, enabling easier referrals, data capture and analysis, aimed at improving prevention and law enforcement.

    For more details on which organisations form part of the First Responders list, see the government website.

    Non-Disclosure Agreements: Law Society publishes new guidance

    Following our reporting of the Women and Equalities Committee’s review of the use of Non-Disclosure Agreements in discrimination cases, the Law Society has now published a brief guidance leaflet called ‘Non-disclosure agreements: what you need to know as a worker’. This is just as helpful to employers as it summarises both the things employers cannot stop workers from doing and explains the restrictions commonly imposed on workers prior to signing the NDA.

    This has been published as part of the Law Society’s new legal education initiative to assist the public understand their rights.

    Upskilling: Give me the chance to save my job

    PwC has recently published a new study called ‘Upskilling Hopes and Fears’, based on a survey of 22,000 people globally, of whom  2,004 were UK adults in the age range 18-65 (retirees were not included). Their findings show that 73% of workers would welcome the opportunity to expand their knowledge of new workplace technology while 54% of those questioned said they would be happy to learn new skills or completely retrain in order to improve their future employability. But many UK workers say their employers are not offering opportunities to upskill. People fear automation in a growing digital world will lead to fewer jobs and this lack of investment in the workforce is breeding mistrust of employers among workers.

    The research also highlights disparities in upskilling opportunities by gender, education, and age:

    • Over half (54%) of men surveyed say their employer is giving them the chance to learn new skills, as opposed to only 45% of women. Over half of women (55%) say they are offered no opportunities at all.
    • 56% of university graduates say they are offered them, whereas only 41% of those educated to school leaver level say the same.
    • 64% of workers aged 18-34 say they are offered opportunities, compared with 48% of 35-54 year olds and 41% of ages 55 and over.

    These results highlight the need for organisations to look seriously at offering upskilling opportunities for staff – particularly in the UK where three-quarters (73%) of workers would take the opportunity to better understand or use technology if they were given the option by their employer.

    Further Information:

    If you would like any additional information, please contact Anne-Marie Pavitt or Sophie Banks on: advice@dixcartlegal.com.

  • Employment Law Newsletter – April 2019

    Posted on Monday April 1st, 2019

    Cases:

    Other news:

    Cases: 

    Minimum Wage: Is being on-call considered ‘time-work’, and therefore minimum wage applies?

    This was the question before the EAT in Frudd & Frudd v The Partington Group Ltd UKEAT/0240/18/OO. The Claimants, Mr and Mrs Frudd, were a warden/receptionist team who worked at a caravan site. During the open season they worked shifts which finished between 4.30pm and 8pm and were expected to be on-call afterwards on two or three nights a week until 8am the following morning. The Claimants argued that whilst on-call they were working on “time work” and so entitled to be paid the National Minimum Wage. According to the legislation, workers paid according to the number of hours they are at work are classed as doing ‘time work’. For these workers, the average hourly pay has to be at least the National Minimum Wage, worked out over the period each pay packet covers – so for a worker who gets paid once a month, this period will be 1 month. (The sleep-in exception in the Mencap case did not apply because this was not a sleep-in situation.)

    Although the Claimants had sought a finding in respect of the whole time on call, the Employment Judge made a distinction. He found that the night period (10pm – 7am) was not time work. The Claimants appealed the rest of the time (from the end of the shift until 10pm). The Employment Judge found that for this period they were working on time work because their responsibilities included showing round prospective customers and welcoming late arrivals. They were therefore entitled to be paid the NMW for that period.

    The Claimants were not, however, required to carry out that work after 10pm, unless they were called out for an emergency for which they were paid. After 10pm, they were therefore not working on time work unless called out, and so were merely available for work, and were not entitled to be paid whilst merely on-call.

    Contract of Employment: Variation of a discretionary bonus 

    In Bluestones Medical Recruitment Ltd v Swinnerton UKEAT/0197/18/BA Mr Swinnerton made a claim for unlawful deduction from wages after he was not paid a bonus he claimed was due to him. His contract stated any bonus was discretionary but he claimed that when he had been promoted to General Manager there had been a further agreement. He was to be paid a monthly bonus based on the company’s profits and he would become a shareholder. Bluestones argued that the bonus remained discretionary as  once Mr Swinnerton became a shareholding director he was to be paid the money by way of a dividend. This had not yet occurred and so the money was to be advanced by way of Director’s loan, which he was to repay from his dividends. However, Mr Swinnerton was suspended, Bluestones stopped paying his bonuses and he was then dismissed, all prior to him becoming a shareholder.

    At first instance the tribunal concluded this was an unlawful deduction of wages. However,  the EAT found the tribunal hadn’t adequately identified the legal mechanism through which the contract was changed or what the new contract required. This failure also meant it was not possible to conclude whether the payments should be classified as loans rather than deductions from wages. The EAT therefore remitted the case to a fresh tribunal.

    Vicarious liability: Employer not liable for Christmas party injury

    In Shelbourne v Cancer Research UK [2019] EWHC 842 (QB), whilst at a work Christmas party, one attendee had attempted to lift another (the Claimant, an employee) on the dance floor but dropped her, causing her a serious back injury. The Claimant took the matter to the County Court, claiming the employer (CRUK) was vicariously liable for the actions of the attendee (Robert Beilik, a visiting scientist)because it was a work event. The person who had organised the event for the employer was Mr Hadfield, and he had carried out a risk assessment to cover all the foreseeable hazards of holding an event at the premises (which included laboratories). Mr Beilik had picked up several women that night, prior to this incident, but had put them down again straight away and no one had reported any concerns about him. 

    The County Court held that the employer was not negligent and not vicariously liable for the actions of Mr Beilik. The Claimant appealed. The High Court considered the nature of the occasion and agreed with the County Court Recorder. It was not wrong to find that CRUK took reasonable steps in the planning and operation of the party. No duty of care was breached. The claim for negligence was, accordingly, not made out. Furthermore, he was right to find that Mr Beilik’s field of activities was his research work at CRUK and that this field was not sufficiently connected with what happened at the party as to give rise to vicarious liability.

    Tribunal Procedure: List of issues not pursued by claimant 

    In Kouchalieva v London Borough of Tower Hamlets UKEAT/0188/18/JOJ the EAT had to consider whether the tribunal had made an error or not. The Claimant, representing herself, had brought claims against her former employers, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. In some cases, the employment tribunal will order that a preliminary hearing takes place before the main employment tribunal hearing, as a way of helping the judge understand the case and make arrangements for the main hearing. These are usually used when the case is complicated or involves discrimination, as it was here.  At the Preliminary Hearing a  list of issues was agreed between the parties but, at the final hearing, the unrepresented Claimant did not lead any evidence in relation to a number of issues in that list. In the judgment, the tribunal noted that they had not been pursued, and on finding they were now out of time, declined to extend time.

    At appeal, the Claimant’s counsel argued that the tribunal erred in law in failing to address the agreed list of issues because the tribunal has as its overriding objective to ensure that the parties were on an equal footing, so far as is practicable. He suggested that if the tribunal realises that an unrepresented Claimant has failed to address a particular issue, the ET should raise the matter with the Claimant and ask them whether they intend to abandon the claim. He also suggested that if the unrepresented Claimant has failed to address a particular issue then the Respondent should also bring the matter to the Claimant’s attention, and to the ET’s if the matter has not been remedied satisfactorily.However, the Respondent argued that the list of issues is a case management tool, not a pleading, and the tribunal was under no duty to raise specifically with a litigant every issue which the litigant has not pursued during the hearing.

    The EAT concluded that the tribunal was not under a duty to draw the neglected issues to the Claimant’s attention. It could not treat the issues as having been withdrawn, but it could take the failure to actively pursue the issues into account in exercising its discretion as to whether to extend the time limit. It found the issues the Claimant had not actively pursued to have been out of time.

    Long-term disability: Employee PHI benefits apply to returning to same job

    In ICTS (UK) Limited v Visram UKEAT/0133/18 Mr Visram worked as an International Security Co-ordinator but went on sick leave with work-related stress and depression. The Claimant became entitled to Long Term Disability Benefit (“LTDB” aka permanent health insurance) under his employment after 26 weeks absence. The term of the insurance booklet stated the LTDB would be paid “…until the earlier date of your return to work, death or retirement”. After being absent from work for nearly two years the Respondent dismissed him with pay in lieu of notice, and continued to pay the LTDB until the situation had been clarified.

    The issue at hand was whether construction of the phrase “return to work” meant return to work in the Claimant’s former role with the Respondent or whether it meant any suitable work which the Claimant was able to carry out whether for the Respondent or otherwise. The EAT ruled that the words “return to work” in the policy did not mean return to full-time work with any employer, but specifically the employer that he had worked for prior to going on sick leave and doing the same work. Had he not been dismissed he would have continued to be entitled to receive the benefits since he was unable to return to the same work he had been doing when he became unwell. It also upheld the tribunal’s finding that the dismissal constituted discrimination arising from disability and was unfair. Therefore he was entitled to be compensated for loss of benefits until death or retirement. The claim remitted to the tribunal for determining compensation for loss of long term and associated benefits and the issue of mitigation. (His claim for aggravated damages also remitted for determination.)

    Unfair Dismissal: Not unfair to dismiss after tribunal and disciplinary

    In Radia v Jeffries International Ltd UKEAT/0123/18/JOJ, a Managing Director of a FCA-regulated financial services company had taken his employer to tribunal over two claims – one for disability discrimination and a later claim of victimisation. The first tribunal found that  “in several areas of his evidence the Claimant had not told the truth or had misled the tribunal and had given untrue evidence”, and additionally, they had also noted that “the Claimant’s behaviour as a regulated person would be a matter of grave concern”. Furthermore they found the employer’s witnesses credible but did not think the same of the Claimant.  On receiving the judgment, the employer suspended him on full pay pending a disciplinary, but without holding an investigation. The Claimant did not appeal this judgment.At the disciplinary meeting, the Claimant disputed the tribunal’s findings against him but did not deal with the allegations themselves. For all these reasons, combined with his behaviour being “not compatible with his being a fit and proper person for the purposes of the FCA rules”, the Respondent dismissed the Claimant. 

    The second tribunal found in favour of the employer – it had acted reasonably in treating the findings of the first tribunal as a starting point without further investigation at that stage and then seeking the Claimant’s representations about those findings. 

    The Claimant issued his third claim to the tribunal complaining that his suspension, dismissal, and the Respondent’s refusal to hold the hearing of his appeal against his dismissal amounted to whistleblowing detriment, victimisation and unfair dismissal. The tribunal found in favour of the employer, that the dismissal had been fair.  

    On appeal, the EAT held that there was no error of law in the tribunal finding the dismissal fair – for dismissing him without holding an investigation meeting. The question was whether the decision was within the range of reasonable responses. The two stages of investigation and disciplinary meetings are not required by statute or even the ACAS Code, and therefore the tribunal was entitled to reach this conclusion in this case. However, the employer not offering him an appeal did make the dismissal unfair – the tribunal had not made sufficient findings to justify its decision that having no appeal would have made no difference.

    Other news:

    TUC Survey: Britons work longer than rest of Europe

    The TUC has recently published results of a survey they have conducted into working hours in 2018. The interesting results are that the British work an average of 42 hours a week (which equates to two and half weeks a year), and this is almost two hours longer than the European average (40.2) and five hours more than the Danes, who racked up a mere 37.7 hours a week.

    Britain’s “long-hours culture” is not having a positive impact on productivity. In similar economies to ours, workers are much more productive for each hour they work.” And that “the long hours worked by Britons are depriving them of a fulfilled personal life,

    says the TUC.

    Can this be true? With the Danes dominating the World Happiness Report rankings year after year, perhaps this is food for thought?

    HMRC: New guidance published regarding change to IR35 rules

    IR35 is the name given to tax legislation that is aimed at identifying individuals who supply services to clients via their own company and who are avoiding paying the full amount of tax that they should be. The rules have been changing for a while, with the most recent changes concerning those working in the public sector, but new rules regarding off-payroll working in the private sector are due to come into effect on 6 April 2020. 

    HMRC has published new guidance, which contains four key steps, to assist organisations in dealing with this as it will be responsibility of the organisations receiving the individual’s services to decide whether the amended off-payroll working rules apply or not. 

    Tribunals: Modernisation plan from 2019-20 to reform tribunals 

    In January 2019, Sir Ernest Ryder, Senior President of the Tribunals, published a report entitled ‘The Modernisation of Tribunals 2018’ setting out his proposed strategy for the reform of the whole tribunal system, including the immigration and employment tribunals. Following on from that, he has now published his Innovation Plan for 2019-2020, which sets out various aims and objectives to reform the employment tribunals. It includes the introduction of digital case management, recording of hearings and digital evidence presentation and the ability to use live video evidence. 

    Mental Health at Work: New CIPD report shows workers increasingly absent from work due to stress

    The CIPD and Simplyhealth recently published the results of their nineteenth annual survey which shows that nearly two-fifths of UK businesses (37%) have seen an increase in stress-related absence over the last year. The survey is designed to explore the trends and practices in health, well-being and absence management in UK workplaces. The survey was completed in November 2018 by more than 1,000 professionals, covering 3.2 million employees across the UK. According to the report, heavy workloads and poor management style are to blame.

    Overall, the findings reflect employers’ growing recognition of their critical role in improving the health of the workforce. But the survey highlights some cause for concern, including an increase in stress-related absence and a lack of support for managers, who are increasingly expected to take responsibility for their team’s well-being

    reports the CIPD.

    CIPD are trying to bring this to the attention of employers so that they invest in more training and development for managers. To this end they have published some top tips to support managers to minimise stress in their teams and also have a useful management development factsheet for developing people management skills.

    Equality: New GPG figures show gap is actually widening in favour of men

    The deadline for large private sector organisations to publish their gender pay gap figures recently passed and it seems that producing this information is, so far, not having the desired effect. Nearly ten and a half thousand companies filed their data on time, but a worrying 45% of these show an increase in the gap between the pay of men and women in the last year.

    The way the figures are reported is important to understand – the median pay gap and mean pay gap are ways of expressing two different data sets. The median pay gap is the difference in pay between the middle-ranking woman and the middle-ranking man whereas the mean pay gap is the difference between a company’s total wage spend-per-woman and its total spend-per-man. Whilst gender pay gap (GPG) is not the same as unequal pay (which is illegal) this is certainly a matter of inequality. There are other matters which influence the GPG such as having fewer women in senior or highly paid roles, more women in part-time jobs or lower paid roles, fewer women generally in certain industries (particularly where STEM subjects are necessary).

    Some of the biggest offenders where the women’s median hourly wage was lower than the men’s were Easyjet (47.9 %) and Independent Vetcare (48.3%), whilst Kwik Fit, Interserve FS and car retailer Inchape showed the biggest increases in their pay gaps. Overall, the figures tells us that the median GPG has reduced marginally by 0.1% to 9.6% in favour of men. There is clearly plenty more to be done. Frances O’Grady, General Secretary of the TUC, said that employers are not making significant changes to tackle the disparity that exists. Indeed, there is concern about the attitude of employers who may be treating the government’s requirement to publish gender pay gap figures as an exercise in compliance, or even as a marketing strategy. There has been a suggestion that employers should publish action plans meaning they will have to explain their figures and examine and target where the inequalities exist in order to make meaningful change.

    Further Information:

    If you would like any additional information, please contact Anne-Marie Pavitt or Sophie Banks on: advice@dixcartlegal.com