Taylor Review: Government pledges to reform workers’ rights

The Government have reported that it will enforce workers’ rights from their first day in a new job.

On 7th February, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) said it had acted on “all but one of Matthew Taylors 53 recommendations.”

It has been proposed that the Good Work Plan will ensure that all workers, including casual and zero-hour workers will receive basic rights and payslips and, for the first time, ensure all workers receive holiday and sick pay.

In addition, the Good Work Plan will seek to guarantee the right for all workers to request a more stable contract of employment.

Greg Clark, Business Secretary said: “The Taylor Review said that the current approach to employment is successful but we should build on that success, in preparing for future opportunities.”

“We want to embrace new ways of working, and to do so we will be one of the first countries to prepare out employment rules to reflect new challenges.”

“We will take forward Matthew Taylors recommendations and commit to pursuing the quality of work as well as the number of jobs.”

However, before taking any further action, the Government have said it will consult with businesses on the impact of plans to enforce employment rights, change rules concerning agency workers, increase transparency in the labour market and consider employment status.

The Good Work Plan will include:

  • Tougher regulations for sectors who employ unpaid interns to do the job of a worker
  • Publishing names of employers who fail to pay Employment Tribunal awards
  • Quadrupling Employment Tribunal fines for employers who have shown malice, spite or gross oversight to £20,000
  • Higher minimum wage rates for individuals on zero-hour contracts

Matthew Taylor, the leading author of the Taylor Review and Chief Executive of the RSA said: “There is much more to be done to make good work for all a realistic goal, but the Government’s response, emphasising that the good work agenda must now change up a gear for Government, businesses and unions alike.”

“There is much more to be done to make good work for all a realistic goal, but the government’s response to my review is substantive and comprehensive. It will make a difference to the lives of the most vulnerable workers and that is what matters.”

Employment Status – Worker or Employee?

At present, an individual’s employment rights will depend upon whether they are an employee or a worker.

An individual is generally classes as a worker if:

  • They have a contract or other arrangements to do work or services personally for a reward
  • Their reward is for money or a benefit in kind
  • They only have a limited right to send someone else to do the work
  • They have to turn up for work even if they do not want to
  • Their employer has to have work for them to do as long as the contract or arrangement lasts

Employment Rights

Workers are entitled to certain employment rights which include:

  • National Minimum Wage
  • Protection against unlawful deduction of wages
  • The statutory minimum level of paid annual leave
  • The statutory minimum length of rest breaks
  • To not work more than 48 hours in one week or to opt out of this right if they choose
  • Protection against unlawful discrimination
  • To not be treated less favourably if they work part-time

An employee is someone who works under a contract of employment. All employees are workers; however, an employee has extra employment rights and responsibilities that do not apply to workers who are not employees.

Employment Rights

These rights include all of the rights workers have and:

  • Statutory sick pay
  • Statutory maternity, paternity, adoption and shared parental leave and pay
  • Minimum notice periods if their employment will be terminated
  • Protection against unfair dismissal
  • Right to request flexible working
  • Time off for emergencies
  • Statutory redundancy pay

How can Employment Law Services (ELS) help?

If you require employment law advice on any of the issues raised in this article, or any other employment issue give us a call today on 0370 218 5662.  You can also find out more about our fixed fee employment law packages here, or get in touch.

Help your workforce beat January blues

The festive excitement that makes people happy in December comes to a crash in January when everyone has to return to work.

Christmas is now just a distant memory, January can therefore be perceived as the most depressing month of the year. According to the Metro, the third Monday in January is ‘Blue Monday’ – scientifically the worst day of the year.

It is important that employers recognise the risks associated with not managing employee’s health and well-being effectively.

To make a positive and productive start to the year, here is how to help employees tackle those January blues.

(1)    Discourage Presenteeism

Presenteeism, is more formally known as when an employee comes into work even when they are unwell.

As an employer, you expect your team to work productively and meet targets, but when an individual is unwell, it will become difficult for them to focus on what is expected of them. In some cases, they are more likely to work slower and make mistakes.

In addition, the illness may spread, having one team member down may be difficult but having a full office unwell could be disastrous.

Therefore, employers should not apply absence policies so vigorously that staff force themselves into work before recovering properly. Showing your employees that you care about their health will build on employee morale and a more productive working environment.

(2)    Recognition

Employers should never underestimate the power of recognition. One of the main factors of motivation amongst a workforce is the feeling of being recognised and appreciated. January is an ideal time to say thank you for all their hard work over the past year.

Simple gestures such as, a company-wide email or a special mention in a meeting will go a long way. Employers will be surprised at how much drive is generated from this.

(3)    Incentivise employees

Just like recognition, rewards are just as important. At Employment Law Services (ELS), we promote recognition to help motivate your staff. However, if some form of reward does not follow after time, your employees will lose their devotion and come to the conclusion that there will be no pay off for their efforts.

Rewards can take form through a variety of shapes and sizes. Tangible rewards are material rewards given by a company to its staff in return for providing a good service. For example, cash bonus, fringe benefits, pay rise, gym membership etc.

However, it is suggested that intangible rewards are just as effective and cost the company far less. For example, taking an employee out for lunch to thank them for their hard work or providing them with additional annual leave can see a huge impact on the company.

How can Employment Law Services (ELS) help?

The New Year provides employers with an opportunity to start fresh and achieve success. To do this you require a fully focused team. We would love to play a part of your future success, contact us today for your free consultation. 0800 612 4772

Important case law developments – January 2018

(1)    Discrimination based on a perceived disability found as unlawful

In the case of Chief Constable of Norfolk v Coffey, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the decision made in the Employment Tribunal that a police officer did suffer direct discrimination because of a perceived disability.

This came after Lisa Coffey’s employer refused her a transfer as there were concerns that she would end up on restricted duties, this was due to her hearing loss being slightly below the medical standard for police recruitment.

In this judgement the EAT held that Norfolk Constabulary was wrong to have denied an application for a transfer from Lisa Coffey because of her hearing impairment.

The employer’s decision in this case suggested that he perceived his employee to be suffering from a progressive condition, which could advance and as a result, have a substantial impact on her ability to conduct day-day activities. Under the Equality Act 2010, this amounts to the statutory definition of ‘disability.’

Employers should note from the decision in this case that disability discrimination works in the same way as any other form of discrimination.

The EAT stated that: “There would be a gap in the protection offered by equality law if an employer, wrongly perceiving that an employee’s impairment might well progress to the point where it affected [his or her] work substantially, could dismiss [him or her] in advance to avoid any duty to make allowances or adjustments.”

(2)    Employer found vicariously liable for an employee’s disclosure of personal data

The High Court held in the case of Various Claimants v Wm Morrisons Supermarket Plc, that the employer was vicariously liable for a rogue employee who deliberately released personal data of other colleagues.

Where there is an adequate connection between the employment relationship and wrongdoing, employers will be held liable for acts committed by the employee under the doctrine of vicarious liability.

This case decision submits that where an employer has done as much as reasonably possible to prevent the misuse of data, they may still be held responsible for the employee who misuses it, even in the event that the misuse has been predetermined to damage the employer.

Since this ruling, Morrisons have announced that they will be appealing the decision and have been given leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

(3)    Pre- termination negotiations

In the case of Basra v BJSS Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal established that the Employment Tribunal had been wrong to rule out evidence of pre-termination negotiations governed under s11a of the Employment Rights Act 1996 when concluding the effective date of termination of an unfair dismissal complaint. Where negotiations occur prior to the termination of employment, statutory exclusions will apply and therefore, cannot be invoked until the final termination date has been confirmed.

The decision in this case emphasizes the importance of ensuring the wording in any form of communication with employees is carried out carefully, whether on an open or without prejudice basis.

How can Employment Law Services (ELS) help?

If you require employment law advice on any of the issues raised in this article, or any other employment issue give us a call today on 0370 218 5662.  You can also find out more about our fixed fee HR packages here and fixed fee employment law packages here, or get in touch.

Please note, the information in this article is for guidance purposes only and it is therefore advised that employers seek legal advice before embarking on any enforcement action.

Employment law issues employers are set to face in 2018

(1)  General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR)

By now, everyone should have a basic awareness on what GDPR represents and what this means going forward. The GDPR is a regulation implemented by the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission and is intended to unify and strengthen data protection for all individuals operating within Europe.

These regulations are set to come into force across Europe on the 25th May 2018. It is advised that employers use the time before this date reviewing their current documentation and practices to determine how they are currently processing data and confirm whether this is in line with GDPR or not.

It is crucial that employers get this right as the consequences of non-compliance can be potentially devastating for a business, with the maximum fine being 20million or 4% of annual turnover. It has been reported that Uber would have been fined 17.5million for its recent data protection breach.

(2)  Tribunal claims set to increase

Following the abolishment of tribunal fees in July 2017, there has been strong evidence produced suggesting that the number of single claims issued in the UK has increased significantly. Whilst this change in legislation was an unbelievable victory for Unison and employees throughout the UK, going forward, employers will now need to be extra cautious to avoid any risks of being served with an Employment Tribunal complaint.

(3)  Employment Status

The controversary surrounding employment status and companies like Uber and Pimlico Plumbers have continuously dominated the employment law headlines in 2017.

Status will continue as a major issue in 2018. Uber have applied to hear their case heard in the Supreme Court and following the decision made in the Pimlico Plumbers case, that a plumber was in fact a worker under legislation, has been appealed and is scheduled to be heard in the Supreme Court in February.

The Government was expected to respond to the recommendations set out by Matthew Taylor in the Review of Modern Employment Practices by the end of 2017. However, it was reported at the beginning of December that this would be pushed back due to other Government priorities. Therefore, employers will have to sit tight and wait on confirmation of employment status in 2018.

(4)  Sleep in shifts

The case of Esparon v Slavikovska established where there are minimum staffing level requirements that require workers to be on site, they should be paid national minimum wage.

This area of law is predicted to continue as an area of concern for care sector employers in 2018. Employers should consider whether staff are paid in lump sums for overnight shifts or whether their shift is likely to amount to “working time.”

The Government publicly warned that many care sector workers should have been paid at least the national minimum wage for the hours they were sleeping on an overnight shift. It has since been submitted that many of them will be able to claim up to 6 years back-pay.

On recognising the uncertainty around this area, the Government introduced the Social Care Compliance Scheme. This allows employers to voluntary sign up and review their sleep-in payments and reimburse any underpayments to avoid any further action.

How can Employment Law Services (ELS) help?

If you require employment law advice on any of the issues raised in this article, or any other employment issue give us a call today on 0370 218 5662.  You can also find out more about our fixed fee HR packages here and fixed fee employment law packages here, or get in touch.

Please note, the information in this article is for guidance purposes only and it is therefore advised that employers seek legal advice before embarking on any enforcement action.

Top 5 employment decisions of 2017

Over the last year, employment law headlines have been dominated by case law developments on employment status, annual leave, religious dress in the workplace and shared parental leave.

In July, the UK saw one of the most significant employment law decisions of the last 50 years; tribunal fees were found as unlawful.

(1)  R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor (Supreme Court)

Regardless of what side of the employment law fence you sit on, the decision of this case is without a doubt a phenomenal victory for Unison.

Unison began their legal battle back in 2013 and were rejected twice at the High Court and once at the Court of Appeal. It was in July 2017, that the seven judges ruled unanimously that the requirement of having to pay £1,200 for a claim to be heard in the Employment Tribunal was a serious impediment to an individual’s access to justice.

Following this decision, the Government was forced to terminate Employment Tribunal fees with immediate effect.

(2)  Pimlico Plumbers Ltd & another v Smith

Cases of worker status have continuously dominated the headlines in 2017. In this case the respondents argued that Mr Smith was employed on a self-employed basis. However, the defendant successfully argued that he was a worker for the purposes of employment legislation. The key factors considered in this ruling included:

  • Mr Smith was required to wear a uniform with the company’s logo on it;
  • He was contracted to work a minimum number of hours each week;
  • If he was going to be absent, he was not required to provide a substitute to carry out his work in place of him;
  • The employment agreement was made up of restrictive covenants which prohibited the defendant from working as a plumber in any Greater part of London.

Despite it being held in the Court of Appeal; that the claimant was a worker and should be entitled to employment rights, Pimlico Plumbers have appealed to the Supreme Court. This hearing has been predicted to take place early next year.

(3)  Ali v Capita Customer Management Ltd

Mr Ali’s wife was suffering from post-natal depression and had been recommended by her GP to return to work to support recovery. Because of this, Mr Ali requested to take shared parental leave at the earliest opportunity. His workplace policy stated that women on maternity leave should receive full salary for 14 weeks and any time after this would be paid at statutory maternity rates for the following 25 weeks.

In this case the employer had only offered the claimant the statutory minimum pay. Which meant that once he had taken his 2 weeks’ paternity leave, anything after would result in a substantial loss in earnings. Mr Ali argued that by his employers refusing to pay him the same rates as the child mother, was a matter of sex discrimination. The respondent contended that Mr Ali could not compare his situation to his partner on maternity leave as he was not the one who had given birth.

The Employment Tribunal agreed with the claimant, arguing that he had not compared himself to the mother who had given birth. Suggesting further that after the initial two – week recovery period that is specific to a baby’s mother, a female employee on maternity leave was an appropriate comparator. It was irrelevant that Mr Ali had not given birth. Thus, the ET up-held the claimants direct sex discrimination claim.

(4)  Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council v Willetts

In this case 56 employees of Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council argued that their holiday pay should include voluntary over time, as well as out-of-hours standby and call out payments.

The Employment Tribunal established in this case that for the majority of employees, voluntary overtime and allowances should have included holiday pay for the 4 weeks statutory minimum leave. This was because they were paid regularly enough to be considered as part of the normal remuneration. The EAT reiterated the Employment Tribunals decision on appeal.

The decision of this case highlights that payments for voluntary elements of work, not just overtime, should not be treated any differently. It is further observed in this case that out-of-hours standby payments and call-out allowances should have been included.

This may not always be simple, as the EAT fail to provide employers with guidance on what level of regularity or frequency is required for a payment to be classed as standard remuneration.

(5)  Achbita & another v G4S Secure Solutions

In this case the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that prohibiting a female employee of Muslim faith from wearing an Islamic headscarf at work did not amount to direct discrimination based on religion.

When providing guidance, the ECJ established that, as long as the rules were applied consistently across the board, having a rule asking staff to dress “neutrally” cannot constitute to direct discrimination.

However, they did caution that having a “neutral” dress code rule may lead to claims of direct discrimination if there is evidence that individuals of a particular religion are then disadvantaged.

How can Employment Law Services (ELS) help?

If you require employment law advice on any of the issues raised in this article, or any other employment issue give us a call today on 0370 218 5662.  You can also find out more about our fixed fee HR packages here and fixed fee employment law packages here, or get in touch.

Please note, the information in this article is for guidance purposes only and it is therefore advised that employers seek legal advice before embarking on any enforcement action.

An employer’s guide to the party season

Christmas party season is almost in full swing and with it comes the likelihood of a workplace claim as the result of inappropriate conduct.

At Employment Law Services (ELS), we strongly advise that employers are aware of their legal obligations to their employees.

Inviting your staff

In the first instance, it should not be made a requirement that all staff attend the office party. It is important to keep in mind that Christmas is a Christian holiday, thus, an employee should not be pressurised into attending the event if they do not want to on the grounds of religion. In addition, if the party is out of working hours employers should bear in mind some people will have family obligations that may stop them from attending.

Further, employers should ensure that all employees are invited to the Christmas party, this includes employees off on maternity leave, paternity leave and sick leave. Employers will expose themselves to complaints of discrimination should they fail to invite all employees.

Christmas party policies

Alcohol fuelled behaviour is at the root of several Employment Tribunal claims every year. It is important to note; the Christmas party is still a work-related activity. Employers should therefore inform their employees that excessive alcohol consumption, violence and other forms of unwanted behaviour will not be tolerated. All employees should be made aware of the disciplinary procedures that will result from such behaviour.

Tis the season!

To minimise the risk of employees getting too drunk at office parties, it is recommended that employers limit the amount of free alcohol, provide non-alcoholic alternatives and ensure there is enough food to balance it all out.

Bullying, harassment and discrimination

An employer can still be held liable for its employees if the misconduct happened out of working hours – what one may believe to be banter could be taken completely different from the person on the receiving end.

One case that highlights the severity of this, involved a city solicitor stating in public that his colleague had “great cleavage” and “great baps” – these comments were made at the office Christmas party and ended being settled in the Employment Tribunal for £1m!!!!!!

Making promises

At EmployEasily, our advice is do not discuss salaries, promotions or remuneration with employees whilst under the influence!

This was seen in the case of Judge v Crown Leisure Limited – in which the employee claimed his employer promised him a wage increase during conversation at the office Christmas party. On returning to work his wages remained the same. It was at this point the employee resigned and took his employers to the Employment Tribunal claiming constructive dismissal on the grounds that his employer had broken a contractual promise.

However, in this event the EAT established that the promise was too vague and therefore did not amount to a binding contract. Employers should bear in mind that for a contract to be binding it does not always need to be in writing, and in this case, it could have easily gone in the employee’s favour. Employers should not assume that because it has been said at a social event that it cannot be intended to create legally binding commitments.

Social media

The growing use of social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram add another risk associated with the office party that employers should acknowledge.

Employers should reiterate to all employees the businesses social media policy and the consequences of posting pictures online that may damage the company’s reputation or breach another colleagues right to privacy. Our specialist consultants can offer advice and guidance on social media laws for employers.

The morning after the night before

It is up to each individual employer on how they approach the day after the office party, in regard to employee lateness/not showing up at all.

However, all employees should be aware that absence and lateness will be monitored and disciplinary action may be taken if they fail to turn up to work because of a hangover.

How can Employment Law Services (ELS) help?

If you require employment law advice on any of the issues raised in this article, or any other employment issue give us a call today on 0370 218 5662.  You can also find out more about our fixed fee HR packages here and fixed fee employment law packages here, or get in touch.

Please note, the information in this article is for guidance purposes only and it is therefore advised that employers seek legal advice before embarking on any enforcement action.

What can employers do to reduce cyber-bullying in the workplace?

Last week was anti bullying week and it serves as a reminder for employers to consider the growing concern of cyber-bullying in the workplace.

Cyber-bullying is defined as “the use of electronic communication to bully a person, typically by sending messages of an intimidating or threatening nature” and can be treated much the same as traditional workplace bullying or harassment, but involves the use of electronic devices and online communications.

This includes:

  • Nasty emails, texts or social media posts directed at an employee
  • Electronic communications that involve jokes about an individual’s ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or any other subject that would make a person uneasy
  • A bombardment of emails from a manager just before an employee goes on annual leave that could have been addressed much sooner

Malicious behaviour online can be hard for employers to detect as it is often carried out subtly. For example, a malicious post made on social media may go unnoticed from its victim as they do not actively use these kind of sites, however, the rest of their colleagues are exposed to this post and their behaviour towards the victim changes. Although the victim has not seen this post he/she senses a change of atmosphere in the workplace and cannot work out why.

Further, online bullying can leave employees thinking “I am an adult, I need to have thicker skin and get on with my job.” This can leave individuals feeling secluded, which will likely see side effects on their mental health, performance and engagement with the organisation as a whole. In turn, the workplace will experience a high turnover of staff, which will see a financial impact through having to recruit and train new employees. As an employer you are exposing the business to legal action should you fail to act on this form of behaviour in the workplace.

What should employers do to prevent cyber-bullying in the work environment?

  • Ensure all employees are aware that bullying in the workplace will not be tolerated
  • Have well written policies regarding bullying and unacceptable use of technology
  • Have all managers properly trained on how to deal with bullying in the workplace
  • Remind employees to stop and think before sending an email that is likely to get a reaction from the person on the receiving end
  • Promote communication between employees as opposed to squabbling over emails. Face to face chats will cut out the emotional uncertainty of an email

Clarification is crucial in the working environment as there if often uncertainty over what is deemed as unacceptable behaviour online. Often, employees believe that if it is on their private social media page then they should be able to freely express, entirely unaware of the consequences of making malicious comments about their colleagues.

Employers can monitor their employee’s emails and social media sites if another employee reports cyber-bullying. However, it is important that employers remember that those they wish to monitor must be informed beforehand and the reasons behind the monitoring are justified under data protection law.

 How can Employment Law Services (ELS) help?

Employers can take advantage of our online courses on anti-bullying and harrassment in the workplace to ensure they are complying with their legal obligations – click on the link below for more information.

https://employmentlawservices.com/employment-law-advice/sme-employer-toolkit/accredited-e-learning-courses/

Should you require employment law advice on any of the issues raised in this article, or any other employment issue give us a call today on 0370 218 5662.

Please note, the information in this article is for guidance purposes only and it is therefore advised that employers seek legal advice before embarking on any enforcement action.

Uber loses court appeal against drivers’ rights!

In October 2016, the Employment Tribunal ruled that two drivers who were employed as gig-economy workers by Uber should have been classed as ‘workers’ under the Employment Rights Act 1996. This landmark ruling confirmed that the firm were then obliged to pay its drivers the national minimum wage, sick pay and holiday pay.  This ruling has since caused huge implications for the gig-economy.

It was not surprising that by December 2016 the taxi-app company had attempted to overturn this judgement, arguing that they were a ‘technology firm’ and not a transport business; disputing that its drivers were independently self-employed as they were able to choose where and when they worked.

The judges involved in this case accused Uber of “resorting in its documentation to fictions, twisted language and even brand-new terminology.”

Today, one year on, Uber has failed to overturn this tribunal ruling with the EAT handing down its decision and upholding the initial ruling made in the Employment Tribunal; Uber drivers are ‘workers’ and therefore should qualify for all workers’ rights.

Uber have said that they will appeal this decision too as there is a further two stages in the appeal process – The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

Maria Ludkin of the GMB Union said: “Uber must now face up to its responsibilities and give its workers the rights to which they are entitled.

“GMB urges the company not to waste everyone’s time and money dragging their lost cause to the Supreme Court.”

What does this mean now?

Today’s judgement is likely to cause massive implications as other companies with large self-employed workforces may now face very similar action. It is expected that organisations who have adopted a similar model to Uber will now discover that they owe a substantial amount more to their workers, such as paid annual leave, national minimum wage and sick pay.

Employee? Worker? Self-Employed?

It is crucial to the smooth running of any organisation that an employer is aware of what rights its workers are entitled to and what responsibilities they are legally obliged to abide by.

Employees, workers and self-employed workers enjoy a variety of different legal entitlements, and since many of these rights form the basis of the employment status, the consequences of getting an individual’s employment status wrong should not be underestimated.

When determining an individual’s employment status, an employer will be expected to examine the characteristics that form the employment relationship before coming to a conclusion.

Under the Employment Rights Act 1996 an employee is defined as: “an individual who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, worked under) a contract of employment.”

Under the same legislation a worker is defined as: “an individual who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, worked under)— a contract of employment, or any other contract, whether express or implied.”

How can Employment Law Services (ELS) help?

Employers confused or concerned about the employment status of any of their workers and feel they may be affected by any of the issues raised in this article , contact us today on 0800 612 4772 or request a Free Quote now.

Making staff redundant – get it right or risk facing costly Employment Tribunal claims

Recent headlines which saw Sainsburys announce they would be cutting 2,000 jobs, BAE Systems almost the same and Vauxhall 400, has highlighted the importance of businesses having the correct HR and legal resources to ensure organisations are following a fair and proper process.

Smaller companies rarely have inhouse resources to assist with similar problems, thus, making small scale redundancies comes with financial danger.

Employers should confirm in the first instance that it is a redundancy situation

Redundancies occur in three main scenarios:

(1)    The business is having to shut down

(2)    The location of work is closing

(3)    The need for a specific role dries up

It is important that employers select individuals in a fair manner, for example because an employee’s level of experience or capability to do their job. Employers must not select employees on the grounds of age, gender, disability and pregnancy. Failing to comply with these rules will result in an unfair dismissal.

In addition, before an employer decides to make an individual redundant, they should consider other alternatives to the problem. For example, stop recruiting new staff, cut over time and place employees on lay off.

Redundancy Consultations

Should you fail to consult employees in a redundancy, any redundancy made will almost certainly be classed as unfair, exposing employers to an Employment Tribunal claim.

Consultations should include:

– An explanation of the redundancy

– A discussion of any alternative

– Advice on alternative employment

– Listening to any proposals from those affected

– Asking if any employees would like to volunteer for redundancy

Selection Criteria

In this event, employers should consult those affected regarding the selection criteria. Examples of such criteria include:

– Attendance record

– Disciplinary record

– Skills and experience

– Standard of work

– Aptitude for work

Following this, employers should apply this criteria to the roles at risk via a scoring system. This should be applied objectively and personal opinions should not be taken into consideration. On calculating the final scores, employers will establish those employees who score lowest.

Provide those affected with notice

The employees who have been selected for redundancy should be given proper notice of the dismissal. Notice periods are usually the same as those you would give when terminating a contract of employment. Further, employers may establish they have other work available within the business. In this instance, a suitable role should be offered within the notice period before the end of employment and as early as possible.

It is important to note employees with 2 years continuous service at the business are entitled to a statutory redundancy payment up to a maximum of £14,670.

Comprehensive Employment Law Support for Business

Employment Law Services (ELS) is a leading provider of employment law and HR guidance and support to SMEs and Medium Sized Businesses in Scotland and England & Wales. We are proud of our strong reputation for delivering an effective service to employers across a range of sectors including Food and Drink, Telecoms and Distribution.

A number of our team members are recognised as experts in their field, qualified to provide bespoke assistance to clients that reflect the commercial realities they face. Of all areas of UK law, employment law is arguably one of the most complex and fast changing. This requires employers to consult advisors who are up to date with developments and able to keep them appropriately advised on the changing nature of their obligations.

Our service places priority on providing assistance to employers that is prompt and effective. The team at Employment Law Services (ELS) take their role very seriously, and work in partnership with employers to discharge their responsibilities to employees when pursuing a redundancy scheme. We will also be happy to provide onsite guidance and support to businesses, ensuring that they are appropriately advised on the day-to-day realities of operating a redundancy scheme. Contact our team today and find out how we can help you.

Please note, the information in this article is for guidance purposes only and it is therefore advised that employers seek legal advice before embarking on any enforcement action.

Employment Tribunal Refund Scheme Launched

Following the decision made by the Supreme Court in July, ruling Employment Tribunal fees as unlawful, the Government have announced details on how employees who paid tribunal fees can go about requesting a refund.

The Government have submitted that the scheme will be completed in phases. The first phase of the scheme is expected to last around 4 weeks with roughly 1,000 individuals being contacted with details on how to apply for a refund.

In addition, successful candidates will recover 0.5% interest as well as their fee refund. The interest will be calculated from the date they paid the fee up until the date the fee was refunded.

The Government also stated that it would be “working with Trade Unions who have supported large multiple claims, potentially involving hundreds of claimants.”

Those who have paid tribunal fees, but have not yet been called on to take part in the initial stage of the scheme, can register their interest in applying for a refund when the full scheme is launched.

How can we help?

If you’re facing an Employment Tribunal Claim and want to find out more about how Employment Law Services (ELS) can help support your company, contact us today on 0800 612 4772 or request a Free Quote now.