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
One of the more conspicuous contributions to the ever quickening pace of modern life is the rapid increase in the use of the internet for commercial and social interaction. This evolution has occurred so rapidly that most people think nothing of spending hours at a time online, accessing the internet through their phones, note books or laptops. Its origins as the open sharing of academic thoughts and ideas has metamorphosed into such diverse offerings as search engines and shopping; forums and Facebook and not forgetting that the expansion of social media gives you the opportunity to post a million photographs (tagged of course!) of your five year old’s birthday party triumph.
All of this raises an interesting question, one very much the topic of debate in the court recently; is our privacy being sacrificed at the altars of convenience and immediate information?
Continue reading How private is your web life?
CIFAS – the UK’s Fraud Prevention service recently published the annual Fraudscape report which found that if you’re a 46-year-old male living in a major city then you are more likely to become a victim of identity theft than anyone else in the country. Cities including London, Leeds, Glasgow and Manchester were found to be the country’s fraud hot spots. Recorded fraud was up 25pc last year, with 276,993 cases reported in 2014, compared to 221,075 in 2013. One in five people has lost money as a result of cyber crime, the average loss per online attack being £247 per person.
Simon Dukes, chief executive, at CIFAS, said: “The frauds we are recording point to increasingly sophisticated, predatory and organised criminals. This is crime on an industrial scale.”
Celebrities such as Beyonce, Jay-Z and Britney Spears have had their private details stolen and posted online. If it can happen to them, could it happen to you?
It’s not unheard of for criminals to pick through peoples rubbish to get their hands on any sensitive information they can. A full picture of your identity can be obtained from documents such as bank or credit card statements or the contents of your handbag or wallet. Don’t forget that this can also be pieced together from information you provide online. Criminals are hacking through weak passwords and taking advantage of consumers over the internet by creating fake links, sending phishing emails (pretending to be a genuine company you may have dealings with) and even managing to install spyware on your devices in some cases. You may also receive unsolicited calls asking for personal information by criminals posing as your bank, Microsoft etc.
If criminals do manage to get hold of details such as your full name, address, date of birth, phone number as well as credit card details or bank account numbers, they may be able to steal your identity. They could use your name to open accounts, get credit cards and loans or apply for state benefits and documents such as passports and driving licences.
Continue reading The Importance of being Earnest … how safe is your identity?
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?
… of disinheriting your estranged spouse.
Although once the decree absolute is issued, any will you may have in place is read as if any reference to a previous spouse is removed entirely, during separation and the often lengthy process of divorce you are at risk of them inheriting under your will if you do not change it in the interim. (Or indeed if you do not have a will at all – under the intestacy rules).
In all honesty whilst in these circumstances a Codicil revoking a gift to a named beneficiary could be used to “cut out” the estranged husband/wife from the estate (provided you already have a will in place already) the best advice really would be to draw up a whole new will which does not make any provision for the estranged spouse. This should then sit alongside a letter of wishes setting out the reasoning behind the lack of any bequests to try and limit any potential claims against the estate.
Under inheritance legislation, it is possible for certain individuals to make a claim for provision out of a deceased’s estate where reasonable financial provision has not been made for them in the will. This includes the spouse or civil partner of the deceased. A claim for provision cannot succeed though unless the court is satisfied that the will does not make reasonable financial provision for the person making the claim. What financial provision is reasonable depends upon who is making the claim. A spouse or civil partner may seek financial provision that is reasonable in all the circumstances, whether or not it is needed for his or her maintenance. The court does not have to decide whether the deceased acted reasonably or unreasonably.
Continue reading Where there’s a will, there’s a way …
Airlines will be keen to give you your marching orders as soon as possible after a recent decision by the European Court of Justice (CJEU) on the time at which a flight is deemed to have arrived. The Court concluded “…… that the ‘arrival time’, which is used to determine the length of the delay to which passengers on a flight have been subject, corresponds to the time at which at least one of the doors of the aircraft is opened, the assumption being that, at that moment, the passengers are permitted to leave the aircraft,”
“Passengers continue to be subject, in the enclosed space in which they are sitting, to various constraints. It is only when the passengers are permitted to leave the aircraft and the order is given to that effect to open the doors of the aircraft that the passengers cease to be subject to those constraints and may in principle resume their normal activities.”
The ruling is significant for all EU regulated flights where passengers are entitled to between €250 (£200) and €600 (£480) in compensation (in addition to expenses) if a flight is delayed by at least three hours.
Continue reading Please release me, let me go………..
Have you ever bought goods over the internet from a retailer in the European Union and been worried about what you could do if they did not arrive or were faulty?
It is not a very well known fact but our government signed up to a European Directive in 2007 to make it easier for one party to a dispute to take the other to court even though they are located in another European member state. Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 established a European Small Claims Procedure and has applied since 1 January 2009 to business and consumers alike. Its principle aim is to ensure access to justice by simplifying the whole cross boarder court process through the use of unified forms and by reducing matters to a paper procedure where possible. It applies to all European states with the exception of Denmark and strict time frames must be adhered to, to ensure that the dispute is efficiently managed.
European Small claims – what does this mean….?
Simply put, if for example you had a contractual dispute with a party based in the European Union, such as faulty goods being delivered and if you were not able to resolve the matter amicably perhaps via your bank, credit card or a service provider then under the European Small Claims Procedure (or ESCP) a consumer or business can start proceedings using a uniform court form. The ESCP only applies to claims up to the current value of €2000 and to disputes of a consumer and commercial nature. Whilst this description covers quite a wide variety of claims there are restrictions which apply and it is actually easier to list those which don’t.
Continue reading Consumer rights within the European Union
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.