I’ve not written much about coronavirus previously because, frankly, whilst my blogs tend to be topical, it felt overly opportunistic. However, in the last 7 days, the number of calls and emails I’ve received from concerned employers and, in recent days, from employers with fears of members of staff displaying potential symptoms, has sky-rocketed. Overall,…
I spend a lot of time on the phone to clients, both employers and employees, and in recent weeks I’ve spent a decent amount of time discussing the latest developments on Love Island with certain HR Directors and Managers who, naturally, know who they are! YES, I know… It’s potentially unfashionable for me to admit…
The government has published the statutory instruments which implement two weeks’ paid bereavement leave for parents upon the death of a child under the age of 18. The Parental Bereavement (Pay and Leave) Bill and the Statutory Bereavement Pay(General) Regulations 2020 and will come into force as of the 6th April 2020. This new legal…
The Court of Appeal has this week ruled that employers must consider any ‘regular’ voluntary overtime when calculating holiday pay, in addition to ‘non-guaranteed’ overtime, upholding the earlier decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
In Flowers and others v East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust (2017) the Claimants, all employed by the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust (in a variety of roles) initially brought their claim to the Bury St Edmunds Employment Tribunal alleging that unlawful deductions had been made from their holiday pay.
They stated that the calculation of their holiday pay should account for overtime in two categories – non-guaranteed overtime, and voluntary overtime. The difference between the two in this case is that non-guaranteed overtime occurs when the employee is carrying out a task which must be completed after the end of the shift (for example dealing with an emergency services call for an ambulance), whereas voluntary overtime would be classed as additional shifts which the Claimant can choose to volunteer for (there was no requirement or expectation for them to do so however).
At long last the Government has announced its response to the Matthew Taylor report on modern working practices, published in July 2017. Mr Taylor is a former aide to Tony Blair and is currently the chief executive of the Royal Society of Arts. He was charged by the previous Conservative government with reviewing employment law practices, with a particular emphasis on the emergence of the “gig economy”, characterised by zero hours contracts. The Government’s response and recommendations in the “Good Work Plan“, a 62 page detailed response which, commendably, lists all 53 recommendations in the Taylor Report and provides itemised responses
According to the BBC, significant changes will take effect from Monday 24 December, including an entitlement to a written statement for all workers (not just employees) of terms and conditions from the first day of a person commencing work (currently within two months). However, I am not sure that this is correct since secondary legislation will be required and, given the Government’s busy schedule, I can’t see it being fitted in in the near future. However, it makes sense to prepare for the changes and change procedures, where necessary to do so, as soon as possible.
It is no surprise that zero hours contracts have not been banned. When being interviewed on BBC Radio 4 earlier this week Mr Taylor cited the example of the trial run by McDonalds (referred to in my earlier blog posts on the topic) in which employees were offered the choice of fixed hours or zero hours contracts. Only 20% took the fixed hours option, thereby demonstrating that zero hours contracts do work for some people.
Among other notable accepted proposals, as matters stand, a break in service of one week does not affect the calculation of the qualifying period for continuous service. In future, breaks of up to four weeks will be disregarded.
Additional information in the form of a Key Facts Page will be provided to all agency workers at the start of each contract, setting out their contractual and employment rights, so that they are clearly understood from the outset.
Significantly, written statements of terms of employment (to be issued to both employees and workers from day one). Additional information required to be provided includes:
A recent case in the Liverpool Employment Tribunals has highlighted the risk for employers in unilaterally imposing pay cuts on employees in response to a downturn in business.
Mr Decker was a branch manager for a recruitment agency, Extra Personnel Logistics, specialising in driver recruitment for the logistics industry in Merseyside. He commenced employment in December 2008. On commencing his employment he worked 40 hours a week flexibly between 7.00 a.m. and 7.00 p.m. Monday to Friday. In July 2015 it was agreed that his working hours would be reduced to 32 per week. It was also agreed that he would be released from on call duties, other than covering holidays and emergencies.
On 20 February 2017 he was asked by the managing director, Brad Richardson, to reduce his working days from four to two (32 to 16 hours), equating to a loss of £205.95 per week. The following day Mr Richardson wrote to him, confirming the reduction to Mondays and Tuesdays only. He gave the reasons as the loss of two contracts and the industry market being quiet. The letter also informed him that the consultation period for the contract would run until 6 March, following which a meeting would take place the following day. Mr Richardson also referred to an offer of six additional hours doing sales which, although it had been declined by Mr Decker, would remain open for discussion.
On 3 March Mr Decker wrote to Mr Richardson to inform him that, due to his financial circumstances, he could not afford any reduction in his existing working hours and that he was willing to discuss matters further at the meeting on 7 March.
At the meeting Mr Richardson said that, as a result of the resignation of Mr Decker’s daughter in law (who had also been offered a reduction in working hours), he could offer a further eight hours per week. However, that was subject to him resuming on call work. Mr Decker said that he would accept the reduction from 32 to 24 hours if his day rate was increased from £102.97 to £110.00, on the basis that this would assist the employer in achieving its cost-cutting objective.
No agreement was reached at the meeting.
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.
Brexit. Brexit. Brexit. Whilst Christmas and New Year provided a welcome rest from Brexit-dominated headlines, there is no doubt that the media train will start in earnest sooner rather than later.
Just before Christmas, various newspapers reported that the Working Time Regulations could be a target for the Government following the UK’s departure from the EU. Certain newspapers went further and stated that repealing or substantially amending the Working Time Regulations would be a positive example of removing so-called ‘red tape’ and freeing businesses from the burden of overbearing regulations; some newspapers even trotted out the over-used line of ‘taking back control’.
So, to use that awful phrase, should the UK ‘take back control’ and amend the Working Time Regulations?
On 6th December 2016, the Government published the Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations 2017, which will require large private sector businesses to publish gender-based pay statistics each year. These Regulations are likely to come into force (subject to parliamentary approval) on 6th April 2017, and will essentially require employers with 250 or…
Employers may not be aware that much of the current legislation in place to protect employee rights actually derives from the European Union – for example, working time regulations, rights of the employees on a business transfer (TUPE) and family leave rights to name but a few. Indeed some Politicians for the ‘Leave Campaign’ will no…