http://www.mercerhole.co.uk/firm/partners Up to the minute news and comment from Mercer & Hole's HR department. en rogerbuddle@mercerhole.co.uk Copyright 2008 2008-07-03T12:18:01+00:00 http://www.mercerhole.co.uk/news/people-entry/equalities_bill/ http://www.mercerhole.co.uk/news/people-entry/equalities_bill/ In June, the government announced an Equalities Bill which is expected to be introduced in to the next Parliamentary session, starting in November. It is designed to “declutter” our discrimination laws which have built up over the last 40 years. They point out that there are currently nine major pieces of discrimination legislation, around 100 statutory instruments and more than 2,500 pages of guidance and statutory codes of practice. These cover discrimination on grounds of sex, race, disability, age, sexual orientation and religion or belief. The aim is to clarify legislation and guidance, to help those who benefit from the law and those who need to comply with it. The aims are to • Introduce a new Equality Duty on the public sector. • End age discrimination • Require transparency • Extend the scope of positive action • Strengthen enforcement This is a step closer towards positive discrimination, enabling employers to favour female or ethnic minority candidates if they are under represented in the workplace and are equally qualified for the job, compared with non disadvantaged applicants. It will also encourage employers to disclose information about workers salaries, and prevent secrecy clauses within employment contracts which stop employees discussing their salaries with each other. A comprehensive paper on the content of the Equality Bill will be published soon which will include the Government’s response to the consultation “Discrimination Law Review; A Framework for Fairness: Proposals for a Single Equality Bill for Great Britain” which was carried out last year. HR's World 2008-07-03T12:18:01+00:00 http://www.mercerhole.co.uk/news/people-entry/challenge_to_compulsory_retirement_age/ http://www.mercerhole.co.uk/news/people-entry/challenge_to_compulsory_retirement_age/ The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 permit employers to dismiss on the grounds of retirement those employees who are aged 65 or over without this being regarded as age discrimination, unless a normal retirement age in excess of 65 applies to that employment. An employer wishing to retire an employee compulsorily at any age is required to follow a procedure, giving them between six months and 12 months notice, and informing them of a right to request not to retire. The charity Heyday, part of Age Concern, has disputed the legal retirement age of 65, and there will be a hearing at the European Court of Justice. According to Personnel Today this will now take place on 2 July, which is months earlier than the 2009 date previously expected. Heyday claims that the UK government is in breach of the EU’s Equal Treatment Directive by imposing a mandatory retirement age. If the challenge is successful, employees who were made to retire at 65 could claim age discrimination – some have already puts claims on record in case the UK government loses. Currently employers have a choice of continuing to retire employees and face potential liability if Heyday is successful, or remodelling their retirement policy to remove a mandatory retirement age. Hopefully the situation will become less confusing after 2 July. HR's World 2008-06-10T09:46:00+00:00 http://www.mercerhole.co.uk/news/people-entry/tupe_service_provision_change/ http://www.mercerhole.co.uk/news/people-entry/tupe_service_provision_change/ Thomas-James and others v Cornwall County Council and others, has been one of the first cases to examine the application of the service change provision regarding transactions on or after 6 April 2006. These provisions were designed to cover contracting in, contracting out and re-tendering exercises. There are still difficulties with the “amended” TUPE, however, which this case illustrates, when the identification of a transferee for the transferring activities cannot be traced between the outgoing contractor and the new contractor. Cornwall County Council were one of seventeen service providers contracted by the Legal Services Commission to provide a free legal helpline service. Under this scheme, callers would be routed to the next available adviser from any one of those seventeen with the required category of legal specialism. The LSE put the contracts out for re-tender in 2006 and Cornwall County Council decided not to bid. The Council’s contract and the claimants’ employment contracts with the Council terminated in 2007. The contractors operating the new contract numbered nine rather than seventeen and consisted of some of the past contractors plus a number of new contractors. The claimants and the Council claimed that the contracts of employment had passed to the new service providers, which they denied. The Employment Tribunal accepted that the claimants had been part of an organised grouping of employees whose purpose would be to carry out activities on behalf of the Legal Services Commission. It could not, however, ascertain which new service provider had taken over the activities previously undertaken by the outgoing contractor – the council. As it was not possible to identify to which of the nine new service providers the council’s former activities had transferred, the claimants were not protected by TUPE as there could be no service provision change. This is a first instance decision and the case may go to appeal, but it does illustrate the continuing difficulties presented within TUPE. HR's World 2008-05-06T14:44:00+00:00 http://www.mercerhole.co.uk/news/people-entry/varying_employee_contracts/ http://www.mercerhole.co.uk/news/people-entry/varying_employee_contracts/ In the Employment Appeals Tribunal case of Robinson and Tescom Corporation, Mr Robinson was employed as a territorial manager for Tescom, selling systems and components. Tescom formulated a restructuring plan that involved expanding the territory covered by Robinson. Initially this required national travel but, as he did not agree with this proposal, it was amended to cover the whole of the south of England. Robinson subsequently raised a grievance about the changes stating he wished to remain in his existing position. At the conclusion of the grievance Robinson said that he would take on the extended sales territory, but would review the situation over a 12 month period. Two months later, he said that he would work under the new job description, but under protest, and that he was treating the change as a breach of contract. He subsequently refused to work to the new terms and Tescom dismissed him summarily for failure to follow a reasonable management instruction. Robinson brought claims for unfair dismissal and breach of contract. The employment tribunal dismissed the claim, as Robinson had agreed to work under the terms. On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that having taken the position that he would agree to work under the new terms albeit under protest and reserving his rights, he was required to in fact work under those new terms. The employment tribunal had been correct to hold that there was no unfair dismissal when Tescom terminated the employment in response to Robinson's refusal to work under the new terms. This decision confirms that an employee who is faced with an attempt by the employer to unilaterally vary the contract of employment has four options: 1. To agree to the variation 2. To resign and claim constructive dismissal 3. To refuse to work under the new terms (thus forcing the employer to either permit the employee to continue working under the old terms or to dismiss 4. To 'stand and sue' by working under protest and seeking damages (either for breach of contract, or for unfair dismissal). This case illustrates that employees have to choose one course of action and, having done so, can’t then change to another. HR's World 2008-04-10T09:49:00+00:00 http://www.mercerhole.co.uk/news/people-entry/changes_to_smp_and_ssp_and_increase_to_minimum_wage/ http://www.mercerhole.co.uk/news/people-entry/changes_to_smp_and_ssp_and_increase_to_minimum_wage/ From 6 April 2008 Statutory Maternity Pay will increase from £112.75 to £117.18 per week and Statutory Sick Pay increases from £72.55 to £75.40 per week. From 1 October 2008 the minimum wage will increase. The adult rate will go up from £5.52 to £5.73 per hour. The rate for 18-21 year olds will rise from £4.60 to £4.77 and the 16-17 year old rate will increase from £3.40 to £3.53. HR's World 2008-03-31T10:37:00+00:00 http://www.mercerhole.co.uk/news/people-entry/temporary_workers_rights/ http://www.mercerhole.co.uk/news/people-entry/temporary_workers_rights/ The CIPD’s latest survey, published in their Labour Market Outlook, looked at the implications of the EU Agency Workers Directive. This would grant agency workers equal rights to permanent staff after six weeks. Asked about the effects of the directive, 37 per cent of employers said they felt it would have a negative impact with another 42 per cent feeling uncertain. 39 per cent said it would change their recruitment strategy, with the majority saying that they would take on fewer agency workers as a result. Speaking at the report’s launch in Westminster, Alan Duncan, shadow business secretary, said he did not think the directive was good for work or for the economy. “The point is that most people are already protected by a great many pieces of legislation and so, fundamentally, I think there is no need for this”, he said. The TUC general secretary Brendan Barber disagreed, however, and said he wanted the equal treatment to apply from day one of employment. “It’s simple justice that if you are doing the same job then you ought to be entitled to the same rights. If you set a qualifying period of any length then unscrupulous employers will abuse that”, he said. The full survey is available at www.cipd.co.uk/surveys. Implementation of this Directive has been opposed by the UK Government and no EU agreement has yet been reached. HR's World 2008-03-26T12:19:01+00:00 http://www.mercerhole.co.uk/news/people-entry/tuc_calls_for_substantial_increase_in_statutory_redundancy_pay/ http://www.mercerhole.co.uk/news/people-entry/tuc_calls_for_substantial_increase_in_statutory_redundancy_pay/ The TUC has called on the Chancellor to increase the weekly limit on statutory redundancy pay from £330 to £500 in the forthcoming Budget as a major step towards restoring the real value of the limit when it was first introduced at £40 in 1965. Anyone who has worked for the same employer for more than two years is entitled to redundancy pay, but there is a statutory maximum limit to what counts as a week's pay - anything earned in excess of this limit is not counted when working out statutory redundancy pay. This is set annually and is currently £330 per week. Official figures show that more than half the working population earn more than this a week (53 per cent). Mean pay is £452 a week, so the current limit is just 73 per cent of average pay. When redundancy pay was introduced for the first time in 1965 the limit was set at £40, more than twice the average wage (£19.60). If the limit had been uprated in line with prices it would now be a little over £500, and if increased in line with earnings it would now be in excess of £1,000. The TUC General Secretary has asked that the Government’s manifesto pledge at the last election to boost redundancy should now be implemented, with a one off rise to £500 and a link to earnings rather than prices in the future. HR's World 2008-03-04T14:22:00+00:00 http://www.mercerhole.co.uk/news/people-entry/employment_status_of_agency_workers/ http://www.mercerhole.co.uk/news/people-entry/employment_status_of_agency_workers/ The Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of an Employment Tribunal with regard to James v London Borough of Greenwich. Ms James was an agency “temp” supplied to Greenwich Council but, following a period of absence, was replaced and subsequently brought a claim for unfair dismissal. As she was not an employee of Greenwich Council she did not have a right to bring a claim. Although she did not have an express employment contract with them, she contended that there was an implied contract as she had worked there for several years and had been treated as though she were a permanent employee. An employment tribunal found that there was no basis for implying that a contract existed, and the Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed. It said that there could be times when a contract of employment can be implied between an agency worker and the user of that temporary worker (Dacas v Brook street Bureau (UK) 2004 and Cable and Wireless plc v Muscat 2006), but these would be the exception rather than the rule. It will not be down to the length of time the agency worker has been has been placed with the end user but whether it is necessary for that to give business reality to the arrangement. The Court of Appeal agreed with the EAT, in that issues must be decided in accordance with common law principles of implied contract, and that “mutuality” would be necessary. The Court of Appeal did make reference to the current discussions concerning the lack of job protection for agency workers but said that it would be for Parliament, government bodies, employers’ organisations and European institutions to debate rather than for courts and tribunals. HR's World 2008-02-12T10:29:00+00:00 http://www.mercerhole.co.uk/news/people-entry/employee_retention/ http://www.mercerhole.co.uk/news/people-entry/employee_retention/ A recent survey (2008) by consultants Talentdrain provides interesting information about the difficulties 75% of participating organisations reported – retaining their employees. Data suggests that 1 in 4 employees leave their jobs within 6 months while over 50% stay for less than 2 years. Low levels of unemployment, increasing job vacancies and widespread skills shortages give staff plenty of opportunity to change jobs if they are dissatisfied in their current role. The average annual rate of staff turnover quoted in a CIPD survey in 2007 is 18.1%, and average replacement costs are estimated at £7,750, so reducing turnover leads to significant savings. Why do employees leave? HR generally assume it is “lack of promotion prospects” or “level of pay” whilst the survey of leaving employees shows that “personal growth” (defined as challenging work and opportunities for training and development) regularly tops Talentdrain’s surveys when employees are asked to identify the most important factor to maintain their commitment. What are organisations doing to improve retention? Improving employee communication and involvement; improving the induction process; and improving learning and development opportunities, are cited as the most popular ways to increase employee buy-in and commitment. Although the CIPD believe that 2008 will be a much tougher year for job-seekers, and the softer labour market may ease overall retention pressures, organisations faced with difficult trading conditions will need to retain their best talent to enhance their performance and competitiveness. HR's World 2008-01-28T16:50:00+00:00 http://www.mercerhole.co.uk/news/people-entry/trainee_opportunities_in_tax_and_audit_closing_date_for_applications_8_febr/ http://www.mercerhole.co.uk/news/people-entry/trainee_opportunities_in_tax_and_audit_closing_date_for_applications_8_febr/ We have exciting trainee opportunities in our St Albans, London (Tax only), Milton Keynes and Northampton offices for bright, focussed individuals wishing to obtain a professional qualification and pursue a rewarding career with countless prospects/opportunities. See our trainee recruitment page for more details. The Position Post 2008-01-18T12:49:00+00:00