Louisa joined the employment team at Canter Levin and Berg in April 2018 as an employment paralegal, having previously gained experience working within the conveyancing department at Stephensons Solicitors in Wigan. Originally from Tasmania, Louisa attended the University of Melbourne where she gained her undergraduate degree in Politics and Criminology before making the move to the UK to complete the Graduate Diploma in Law at BPP Manchester in 2015. Outside of work Louisa enjoys climbing mountains with her dog, live music, travelling to new places and attempting to cook delicious meals for family and friends.

Do employers need a “healthy emails policy”?

email inboxEmployees are more connected than ever when it comes to accessing work systems and emails remotely. While advances in technology mean that employees and employers alike can benefit from flexible working arrangements, it also means that it has become increasingly hard for employees to ‘clock out’ at the end of the day. Improved accessibility can therefore be both a blessing and a burden. Employers should be mindful of the impact that being connected beyond the 9 – 5  may have on members of staff and how this may in turn effect the overall productivity of the team and the business.

A report by the Future Work Centre, based in London, found that two of the most stressful habits employees could foster were leaving emails on all day, and checking emails outside working hours – namely early in the morning and late at night. Answering correspondence outside of working hours can lead to clients and customers developing unrealistic expectations of the service that they should receive. The danger is that the bar for an appropriate response time is raised ever higher.  Constant engagement with work emails and the associated stress on employees will have a big impact on the productivity of a workforce. Britain is now the second least productive economy in the G7, behind Japan with the most productive being America, Germany and France.

The French government has taken a pro-active approach to increasing the productivity of their nation’s workers by using legislation to achieve a more desirable work/life balance.

Ensuring employers don’t pay for failing to comply with incoming payroll legislation

New requirements for employers to provide payslips are on the way – the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Itemised Pay Statement) (Amendment) (No.2) Order 2018  comes in to effect on the 6 April 2019. Once implemented, all workers will have the right to obtain a written, itemised payslip at any time before or after their wage or salary has been paid to them. Previously, this obligation extended to employees only. The new law comes after a recommendation by the Low Pay Commission in 2016 and forms part of the Government’s raft of initial responses to the Taylor Review on Modern Employment Practices. The Taylor Review, published in July 2017 set out key recommendations to increase the rights of workers and this new legislation is aimed at ensuring that low paid workers can work out whether they have been paid correctly.

The widening of the obligation will increase transparency in relation to wages and will assist workers in challenging discrepancies. It will also highlight if an employer is falling short of their minimum pay obligations (National Minimum Wage and National Living Wage).

Aside from being necessary evidence for pay disputes, payslips are required by workers for many other purposes – securing credit for a property, securing rental accommodation, proof of loss of earnings and proof of employment generally.

The extension of the right to include all workers will now mean workers in the gig economy and those on casual or zero hours contracts will be entitled to an itemised pay slip where previously they were not.

Dressing for work

The government has released some useful guidance to assist employers in getting to grips with worker’s rights and the law surrounding dress codes in the workplace. The guidance acknowledges that employers should have the power to draft and enforce a workplace dress code policy but must ensure that it is not discriminatory in nature. There is a lot of misunderstanding and confusion surrounding such policies and it can be difficult for employers to get the balance right. Can a policy require a male employee to wear a tie? A female employee a skirt? What should your stance be on manicured nails? While the guidance does not change the law in this area, it does provide some welcomed clarity (although it is not without its critics).

As you may recall, the ‘high heel scandal’ brought dress code discussions to the media forefront back in 2016 after a temp worker, Nicola Thorp was sent home on the first day of her assignment at a large London firm for wearing flat shoes. It was stated within the employment agency’s Grooming Policy that female staff were required to wear smart shoes with a heel height of between two and four inches. Nicola was advised by the agency that she could take time out of the working day to purchase a suitable pair and was sent home without pay when she refused.

As a result of her treatment, Nicola submitted a petition to government to make illegal any policy which forced women to wear high heels at work. The petition received 152,420 signatures over a six month period and gained the right to be debated in parliament on the 4th of March 2017. The government’s view is that the current legislation is clear and sufficient enough as it stands to protect employee’s rights. While pledging to take action to remove the barriers to equality for women at work, the government maintains that employers are entitled to set dress codes for their employees provided that they are reasonable.

A joint report by the Petitions and Women and Equalities Committees however has called on the government to do more

Shocking behaviour revealed at Marine Scotland

A whistleblower who complained of a racist and misogynistic workplace culture at a Scottish Government controlled Marine Scotland office has claimed she was restrained in a chair and gagged by two male co-workers in response to her speaking out.

DeeAnn Fitzpatrick is a civil servant and Canadian national employed as a fisheries officer at Marine Scotland’s office in Scrabster on the Caithness coast, Scotland. Fitzpatrick claims that she was subjected to bullying, harassment and a sustained pattern of racist and misogynistic behaviour over a period of nearly ten years whilst working at the office. Her claims are currently being considered at an employment tribunal in Aberdeen. Allegations include that she was mocked for having a miscarriage, advised by co-workers that they didn’t want to work with a ‘foreign woman’ and subjected to racist language. Fitzpatrick has been unable to work and has been signed off on sick leave since November 2016, after also experiencing a family bereavement during this time.

BBC Scotland have obtained and released a photograph of the described event earlier this month, taken by one of the men allegedly responsible. It pictures Ms Fitzpatrick gagged and secured in the chair with packaging tape. Fitzpatrick claims that she was subjected to the treatment as a result of ‘blowing the whistle’ on the behaviour of her male colleagues. She has stated that in 2010, two male colleagues had restrained her in the chair before telling her ‘This is what you get when you speak out against the boys’. When Ms Fitzpatrick reported the incident to her manager she was advised that he would ‘have words’ with the colleagues involved but the matter was not reportedly escalated any further.

While the Tribunal proceedings are ongoing, Ms Fitzpatrick is also understood to be involved in disciplinary procedures in the workplace with a hearing due at the end of May.

Dealing with “sporting sickies”!

Merger or Messi? Filing or Fellaini? With the festivities of the world cup to hit us next month perhaps now is as good a time as any to consider whether a workplace policy for major sporting events is necessary and what points should be considered.

Many employers may be concerned in the lead up to such a sporting event that instances of absenteeism will increase as staff take ‘sickies’ to watch the match or recover from the one the night before. Ahead of the 2016 Euros a survey completed by Robert Half found that 73% of UK Human Resources Directors believed employees are likely to skip a day of work following or during a tournament match while 21% of respondents considered it to be ‘very likely’.  There is currently no legal requirement for employers to give employees time off for such events but could a flexible approach yield potential benefits with minimal disruption to the business?

In an audit of 1000 Managers carried out by the Institute of Leadership and Management following the London Olympics in 2012, 48% of those interviewed confirmed increased morale within the workplace. Amongst those interviewed, 41% allowed staff to watch the Olympics at the office. From that number over a third (37%) confirmed an increase in productivity as a result with 67% stating that the staff within the workplace bonded over a shared experience.

Addressing the gender pay gap: is it time to consider “use it or lose it” paternity leave?

father and childAs we know, the 4th of April 2018 marked the deadline for all companies in Great Britain (but not Northern Ireland) with more than 250 employees to report their gender pay gap to the Government Equalities Office. As detailed in our blog last month, the returned data shows that nearly 80% of those who have responded have reported higher levels of pay to men than women.

So now that the data has been collected and will continue to be so annually from here on in, we should consider further what employers can do to reduce or eliminate their gender pay gap. Among the suggestions raised are target setting, salary transparency or increased training opportunities for women. One of the key reasons however why women’s pay progression lags behind that of their male colleagues is maternity leave and time taken off for childcare. Could restoring the balance between men and women in relation to paid parental leave have the dual effect of restoring the gender pay balance?

A recent enquiry launched by the Women and Equalities Committee into Fathers and the Workplace indicates that it could. The enquiry has been prompted by research findings contained in the 2017 Modern Family Index which confirmed twice as many fathers compared to mothers believe that working flexibly will result in them being perceived as less committed to their job and would negatively impact their career. Over half (53%) of millennial fathers indicated that they struggled to balance the demands of working full time alongside family commitments and would like to downsize to a less stressful job. The report also notes that women in the UK make up 74.2% of the part-time work force – largely attributable to increased care-giving roles, while the vast majority of fathers still work full time.

Shared parental leave has been available to new fathers since the Shared Parental Leave Regulations came in to effect on 5th of April 2015. The Regulations allow up to 50 weeks leave or 37 weeks’ pay to be shared out between both parents as they please – either in one block or split into several chunks with periods of work carried out in between. Statutory shared parental pay is payable at either £145.18 per week or 90% of the parent’s weekly salary, whichever is lower.  With a predicted take up rate of only 3 – 8% however, it is clear that the Government flagship policy does not go far enough to even out the parental responsibilities. So why has there been such a reluctance from male employees to take up the scheme? The negative social and cultural connotations associated with paternity leave as evidenced by the statistics above contribute heavily, with many fathers feeling unsupported in the workplace with regards to childcare and their aspirations for an improved work-life balance. Also very telling within the Modern Family Index Report is that 44% of fathers stated that they have been dishonest with their employer with respect of family related responsibilities for fear that it may ‘get in the way of work’.