Over recent months it would appear that even celebrities are not immune to taking a leaf out of Ferris Bueller’s book and having a “sickie” from work. Maybe they don’t go to such great lengths to hide their deceit or create such mayhem but none the less they are just like the one-third of British workers who admit to having “pulled a sickie”, according to research by professional services firm PwC. Danny Dyer’s daughter revealed he “lays around on the sofa all day” when he should be working. Zayn Malik left a gig early and was then seen jetting off to LA a couple of hours later and most recently, Nick Grimshaw had a heavy weekend partying and told his bosses he couldn’t make it in (let’s hope he takes his new X Factor role more seriously) .
The cost to UK businesses of these unauthorised days off is around £9 billion per year, a sizeable portion of the £23 billion per year that sickness absence costs as a whole.
The most popular reasons for taking time off, according to the survey of more than 2,000 adults, are hangovers (32%), being bored by their job (26%) and interviews with another employer (26%). One worker in nine (11%) said they had lied to enjoy the good weather, while 8% had done so for a sporting event. Just over one in 10 had phoned in sick because it was Monday.
Some of the imaginative excuses given for missing work were:
“I’ve accidently locked myself in the bathroom and I have to wait until someone with a key to the house can come round to let me out.”
“I’ve accidently sent my uniform to the charity shop so I need to go and buy it back.”
“I thought it was a bank holiday and I’m 500 miles away.”
“I missed the stop on the train this morning and I can’t get off the train now until London.”
For employees who need a helping hand to wax lyrical as to why they have not turned up, a new Android app, Skiver, can help users pull a sickie. The app allows would be skivers to select how many days off they are looking for and provides a selection of plausible illnesses along with a list of the relevant symptoms to dupe their boss. The app even provides an email which can be sent directly to the user’s boss notifying them of the absence. Once their cover story is in place it even provides the user with suggested activities in their area to so they can make the most of their extra time off.
Continue reading ““The question isn’t what are we going to do. The question is what aren’t we going to do” Ferris Bueller”
Zero hours have received a lot of bad press in the past few months with the media reporting on the likes of smiley and sad faces being used to communicate whether an individual was required to work. Interestingly, zero hour or casual contracts have been knocking around for a long while; my very first job was on that basis and, as it was before the prevalence of mobile phones, the age old drawing of straws was used instead.
The issue of zero hour contracts features regularly in questions from our business clients; particularly seasonal businesses. When speaking with small business owner Judith* recently, she raised the topic of the feasibility of using a zero hour contract. After chatting with her it became apparent that what she needed was flexibility with her staff’s working availability. Her business was such that she had discernible busy and quiet times of the year, but her trade attracted casual employees – primarily students – who left as the season quietened. Because of this, her staffing levels were just about right and, as it had never been her practice or intention to have her staff work either no hours, or very minimal hours a week, we advised her on a more appropriate approach.
This is not an uncommon query from SME’s, maybe because there was no legal definition of a ‘zero-hour’s contract’ and it has been used interchangeably with ‘casual contracts’. On the 26th May 2015 the Government implemented certain provisions of The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, which now defines a zero hours contract as a contract of employment or other workers’ contract where any agreement to perform work or service is conditional upon the employer making it available and where there is no certainty that work will be offered. The government has also banned clauses in these agreements which would prevent an individual from working elsewhere whilst waiting for the offer of work – the much touted ‘exclusivity clause’.
As with all new pieces of legislation, its impact is still to be seen, but it still does not address one of the main causes for concern; that being the uncertainty of any employment and whether the offer will be for sufficient hours to live off and it also holds complications for employers such as the calculation of holiday pay.
Zero-hours contracts clearly have a place in society, but as my colleague has previously blogged they also have their limits.
*name has been changed
The rights of a worker to be accompanied by a companion of their choice, to either a disciplinary or a grievance meeting, has been clarified in the publication of an updated ACAS code of practice. This revised code reflects the decision in the case of Toal and another v GB Oils Ltd where aggrieved employee’s successfully brought a claim against their employer after being refused their choice of companion. The employer believed their request was unreasonable and that the individual selected would prejudice the meeting. It relied on the, then ACAS code which stated “however it would not normally be reasonable for workers to insist on being accompanied by a companion whose presence would prejudice the hearing….”
The Employment Appeal Tribunal did not agree with the employer’s view, stating that Parliament had clearly intended the worker to have free choice. It also decided that because the legislation was unambiguous there was no need for the employer to turn to the ACAS guide for interpretation, which they added, in any event had no authority on this occasion to interpret this entitlement – that was a matter for the courts.
The ACAS code of practice is a very useful source of guidance and to be fair, it was accepted good practice previously that only reasonable requests be permitted. The new ACAS code explains:
• The employer must agree to the workers request and choice of companion provided that they are from one of the three categories given in the legislation.
• A worker can change their companion if they wish.
• The workers request does not have to be in writing.
• The workers request should be made in sufficient time so that arrangements can be made for their chosen companion to attend. It should include sufficient detail so that the companion can be identified.
However there are some concerns that the ACAS code has not gone far enough. In the Toal case the Employment Tribunal made it clear that:
Continue reading “Do I need a lawyer? The employee’s companion at a disciplinary or grievance meeting”
Employees can be tricky bag sometimes and dream staff can quickly become your business nightmare. Take time off for family emergencies as an example; Derek* contacted us when one of his newer members of staff started to request time off as his partner was seriously ill.
Being a small businessman, Derek had naturally given his employee the time off without many questions. When he contacted us with an innocuous query on another matter, he mentioned the employee as an aside, raising a common concern by many employers as to what sort of questions can be asked of an employee.
Our legal team promptly advised him of his rights and explained that an employer is entitled to ask suitable questions to establish whether the situation was a genuine emergency, and whether there was anyone else in the family that could assist in the support.
Not only does this keep the communication between the employer and employee flowing but it also establishes the common ground that not all ‘emergencies’ are emergencies and that the circumstances surrounding a request of this nature can be subject to scrutiny by an employer.
Whilst not pertinent to Derek’s query, time that can be taken off for family emergencies has been confirmed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal as being transient in nature – reflecting the emergency that has arisen, and cannot be used for extended absences.
Furthermore if an employer suspects that this right is being abused by an employee, for example there is a pattern starting to emerge in the days that the employee is absent then an employer is entitled to consider their disciplinary procedures.
Continue reading “Case study: Time off for family emergencies; where does the employer stand?”
Shared Parental Leave and pay will be available for employees with babies due on or after 5 April 2015, and for employees who are adopting where the child is placed for adoption on or after that date. This follows the new right for fathers and partners to take time off to attend antenatal appointments which came in on 1 October.
Shared Parental Leave is intended to give working families more flexibility and choices over when and who takes leave during the first year of their child’s life or adoption, allowing parents to be off together if they wish.
BIS estimates that around 285,000 working couples will be eligible for Shared Parental Leave from April but believes that only between 2% and 6% of fathers will take up the new leave rights.
However, Shared Parental Leave will not replace current maternity, adoption and statutory paternity leave. The two week compulsory maternity leave period immediately following the birth of a child or adoption placement will also remain in place along with the current two weeks statutory paternity leave, meaning that parents can still choose to take leave following a birth or adoption placement in line with the current system. This effectively allows fathers or partners can take both the two weeks statutory paternity leave and Shared Parental Leave if they wish.
The Additional Paternity Leave scheme introduced in 2011, which allows the child’s father or the mother’s partner to take up to 26 weeks’ leave, will be abolished from 5 April 2015. If expectant fathers or partners wish to take a longer period of family leave, they would need to do so via the new Shared Parental Leave regime.
Continue reading “Will Employers be left holding the baby?”
Enforced subject access requests
On the 1st of December 2014 the government implemented section 56 of the Data Protection Act. This now makes it a criminal offence for a party to require another individual to make a personal subject access request with a view to that party then viewing it – which is often referred to by many as an enforced subject access request. Employers can still request a criminal record check from the Disclosure and Barring Service where the role they are recruiting for concerns work with vulnerable adults, children or is exempt under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1975.
The scope of this new section is wide reaching; it not only prevents employers from making job offers conditional upon the disclosure of criminal convictions, but also prevents the provider or supplier of a service from imposing the same condition. The ICO has offered some very useful examples in their guide on the subject.
Continue reading “Employment Law: a roundup of the most significant changes in 2014”
So how does fee remission work? When an individual wishes to use the Employment Tribunal, (or the courts), a fee for its use is charged. A fee remission is a request for either full or partial waiver of those fees. To apply for fee remission an applicant must download a form from HM Courts and Tribunal Service website titled ‘Court and Tribunal Fees – Do I have to pay them?’ and to be eligible for either a full or part exemption of a tribunal fee both elements of a two limb test have to be satisfied.
Continue reading “Remission fees in the Employment Tribunal….. a year on.”
According to government statistics the number of Employment Tribunal claims fell 79% to 9,801 in the final quarter of last year compared with the same period in 2012, and dropped 75% on the third quarter of 2013. Although it is difficult to categorically link the drop in Employment Tribunal claims to the introduction of Employment Tribunal fees in July last year, it seems reasonable to draw the conclusion that such fees are acting as a deterrent to both Claimants and employment solicitors alike.
The fees range between £160-£250 simply to submit a claim with a further fee of £230-£950 payable for the claim to be set for a hearing. In unfair dismissal claims it’s not unusual for the maximum potential compensation to be between £5,000 and £10,000 therefore if the Claimant doesn’t qualify for a partial or full remission of fees, they will have to pay between 12% and 24% of the amount they’re claiming before the hearing takes place. For people on low incomes and those new to the Employment Tribunal, this is a daunting prospect, especially when coupled with what many would perceive as a David vs Goliath situation.
Continue reading ““Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Martin Luther King, Jr.”
Employment law changes regularly. To avoid employment tribunals and fines, make sure your company is up-to-date and compliant with the regulations; read our guide to what’s coming-up in 2014.
• Pensions auto-enrolment – by the start of 2014 if you have 350-499 employees you will be expected to offer a qualifying pension scheme.
• Bulgarian and Romanian nationals – from 1 January had their restrictions on working in any EU member state lifted.
• Transfer of undertakings – from 31 January there were changes to the TUPE Regulations.
• National Minimum Wage – from 7 March the penalties for non-payment of this rose substantially. BIS has published information on the new penalties.
• Spent convictions – from 10 March the period during which potential employees need to disclose certain convictions to you was reduced. The Ministry of Justice has published guidance on these changes.
Continue reading “Employment law changes in 2014 that every employer needs to be aware of”
Many businesses going through a bad patch due to the recent floods may have to consider laying off staff or putting them on short time and ultimately making them redundant if things don’t improve.
An employer is generally entitled to tell their staff not to come into work as there is no legally enforceable right to work. However, there is an obligation to pay employees the agreed salary. So usually the employer must pay full pay, unless it has been agreed otherwise or is set out in the contract of employment.
Continue reading ““Rain rain go away, come again another day.””