Archive for the 'HR & Employment' Category

26
Jan
11

Employers’ groups overstate tribunal issue

No sooner had 2011 got into its ill-starred stride then employers groups such as the British Chambers of Commerce and the Confederation of British Industry went into full-on moaning mode about the numbers of cases going before the Employment Tribunal. Yet their use of headline figures masked the fact that most claims never get before the tribunal bench.

It’s true that 236,100 claims were made in the year 2009-10, the last full year for which figures are available. But 164,000 of these emanated from multiple claims related to equal pay, issues arising from strikes at airlines and so on. But 73,000 claims were withdrawn, 70,600 were conciliated by ACAS and 20,100 were struck out at the first hearing. So getting on for 70% of unfair dismissal claims never go through the tribunal system fully.

Unfair dismissals – which bear the brunt of employers’ ire –  added up to 50,900 claims. Some 12,200 were withdrawn, 22,400 were settled by ACAS, 3,900 were struck out before a full hearing and only 5,200 were successful – ie the Tribunal ruled in favour of the claimant.

Employers want the Government to make it more difficult to bring claims to tribunal. This largely applies to claims for unfair dismissal as discrimination claims relate to law based on edicts emanating from the EU and are, therefore, more or less untouchable unless the UK re-asserts its sovereignty and the Lib Dems  become extinct.

The median award for unfair dismissal claims was £4,903 and the average £9,120. This is hardly massively life-changing territory.

Nevertheless, don’t be surprised if the Government pulls some wheeze to keep the BCC and CBI happy – probably raising the threshold for employment rights from one year to two.

As things stand, of course, employers have 11 months or so to judge if an employee is competent and to get rid of him/her if needs be. Would raising the threshold to two years mean they’ll let incompetents soldier on for 23 months?

The Government may also impose a fee for making a claim – but given most claims follow dismissals then the majority of claimants would be unable to pay, so would have to be given what amounts to legal aid.

Employers should be able to manage many situations that lead to unfair dismissal claims by improving their assessment and performance management processes – moaning about the numbers of claims is crying wolf.


12
Jan
11

Age discrimination win is heaven for lawyers

While watching former Countryfile presenter Miriam O’Reilly smiling after winning her age discrimination claim against the BBC, I noted there was one person whose grin was even wider – her lawyer Heather Williams.

I expect the ruling will have set tongues purring at employment law specialists throughout this land of austerity as it will serve not only as more useful case law, but also a flesh and blood example of  the damages that can be won in such cases. If  Selina Scott paved the way, then O’Reilly’s win has turned that path into a tarmaced highway.

But spare a thought for Sky Sports News (SSN) which seems to hire only pretty young blonde totty and wrinkled old white blokes to read its autocues. A channel more out of tune with the times, yet more in tune with its laddish and bloke-ish viewers would be hard to find, well other than BBC Sports on Saturday afternoons.

I fear it’s only a matter of lawyers’ expensive time before SSN falls foul of the diversity industry.

Finally I must declare an interest: I had the honour to kiss the lovely Selina many years ago. It was more than fab, and think  it’s about time SSN offered her an opening – what better way to prove anti-ageist credentials than by having the ever-lovely Ms Scott reporting from one of our great grounds?

07
Jan
11

Employment tribunal rage – the hidden agenda

Suddenly it’s open season on employment tribunals with critics lining up to slag off the system for being as anti-employer as Arthur Scargill on a bad hair day.

This follows some figures from the British Chambers of Commerce showing that the average cost for an employer to defend themselves at tribunal is £8,500, compared to an average settlement of £5,400. This prompted the Daily Mail and others to go into full anti-tribunal flow and re-hash figures that came out last summer showing the number of cases coming to tribunal had reached almost a quarter of a million.

Drill down into these figures and they will show that many cases are group actions undertaken by, for example, trade unions on behalf of hundreds and even thousands of members on issues such as equal pay. Also, the UK is undergoing a deep recession, resulting in many employees losing their jobs – always a trigger for lodging claims at tribunals.

What the Mail and others don’t mention are all the cases that don’t reach tribunals. These are those where employers settle – usually through compromises agreements – with disgruntled employees. At my last employer I knew of several cases involving unfair dismissal and age discrimination that were settled in this way.

This indicates that many UK workplaces are vexatious places where poor communication and mismanagement plus the opportunities offered by employment related laws result in employees raising grievances and threatening actions.

But the real agenda behind the attacks on the employment tribunal system is to put pressure on the Government to repeal some employment laws.  Each one of course gives rise to the opportunity for some tribunal action.

Astonishingly the Cameron/Clegg axis allowed Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill to become law, so employers’ organisations want some payback.

The chances of this happening are slimmer than yer average teenage model as it’s rare for Governments to repeal legislation. But there are options that the Coalition may try, the most obvious being to make it more difficult – it couldn’t be any easier – for tribunal claims to be lodged, for example by charging a fee.

It’s hard to see tribunals awarding costs against unsuccessful claimants as most would be unable to pay. Also, the no-win no-fee brigade may well sense an opportunity to acquire clients who have half-decent claims but who would not pursue them if they had to bear costs.

Perhaps employers should look to improving their liability insurance cover, so that they are not so exposed to tribunal costs. Or acquire more back bone and stand up to ridiculous claims and not be so willing to settle before they reach tribunal.

Expect lots of pious hot air and breast beating but little change.

17
Dec
10

Al Qaeda – embracing diversity?

Now here’s a thought.

Reports that white British muslims have been killed by drone attacks in North West Pakistan show that, for all its obvious failings on the politically correct HR front, Al Qaeda can’t be accused of racism.

Religious discrimination, well probably. Sex discrimination, well maybe. But racial discrimination – it doesn’t look like it.

Don’t be surprised if the organisation collects an award for its efforts to positively encourage all races to join its ranks.

06
Dec
10

EU plans to hike maternity pay are as bonkers as FIFA

Bearing down on costs is something of a mantra these days – unless you’re a member of the Fifa executive committee. And, it appears, the employer’s best friend, the European Union.

It wants to extend maternity pay to 20 weeks of gross salary. This is significantly more than current arrangements where mothers/mothers-to-be are entitled to  90 per cent of average gross weekly earnings with no upper limit for the first six weeks of maternity leave. For the remaining 33 weeks maternity pay is set at the lower of either the standard rate of £124.88, or 90 per cent of average gross weekly earnings.

Of course more generous employers, especially those in the professions, will pay far more than this. Employers can also recover a significant amount of the maternity pay they shell out from the public purse.

Well the talk at the EU is that mothers on maternity leave should get full pay for 20 weeks but no word on the other 19 weeks – though one dreads to think what they may devise for that.

Employers need this like they need an Irish bank account. Lib Dem Business Secretary Ed Davey is expected to tell the Euristas that UK plc could do without ramping up maternity pay

Ironic that this comes shortly after recent political bitching about parents only having children if they can afford them and that only the poor can afford more than one child.

He said it was not the duty of the state to fund an increasing number of offspring with benefits.His comments came days after Chancellor George Osborne announced that no family should receive more than £500 a week in benefits. If some at the EU  have their way it will be employers who are footing much of the bill.

Surely increasing maternity pay by as much as the EU wants will not advance the women’s cause and will serve only to increase the burden of costs on employers?

Oh well, it’s progress.

 

 

 

23
Nov
10

When equality met Scrooge

To paraphrase Oscar Wild re Charles Dickens’ description of the death of Little Nell in the Old Curiosity Shop - you’d need a heart of stone not to laugh.

In this case it’s at Guinness Care and Support, which runs a string of care homes, and  which won’t pay staff bonuses for working on Christmas Day and Boxing Day  because  it cannot, apparently, favour Christmas over other religious festivals as this might discriminate against other religions.

The company’s s senior HR manager, Mick Green, is quoted as saying: “We have a strong ethical belief in equality and diversity and are unable to recognise one religious festival over others.”

Oh yeah. Call me a one-eyed Philistine but I was under the impression that Christmas is the one vaguely religious festival observed in various ways, many unwise and unhealthy,  by most of the population . And, isn’t the Church of England the established religious institution of this realm? Isn’t Her Majesty the Defender of the Faith? And aren’t many of our laws and customs based on a Christian heritage that stretches back to even before the Equalities and Human Rights Commission was founded? And isn’t Christmas a nationally recognised holiday?

To give Guinness its due it is paying staff overtime for working on December 27 and 28 which are the bank holidays in lieu of Christmas day and Boxing Day.

Still this knockabout politically correct  stuff illustrates the total nonsense of equality and the idiocies it leads to. The fact is there is no such thing. Forget the nonsense that all men are born equal – they’re not.

It reminds me of a former colleague, an Irish woman who was the equalities officer for the branch of the National Union of Journalists, which represented members in our work place. She was sent on an “Equalities Weekend” in Amsterdam by the NUJ – who knows why?

On her return we asked how the equalities fest went. “I don’t even know why I went,” she replied. “I don’t even believe in f****** equality.”

 

 

 

 

 

27
Oct
10

Lying is all in the recruitment game

Research just out indicates that job applicants routinely lie in CVs and when attending interviews, but the ability to tell porkies does have its uses in the world of work.

According to the poll, by www.HireScores.com, the study found that fewer than 1 in 10 of the respondents, 8%, said they have ‘never’ lied in a job interview. The recruitment agency review site asked 1,218 people across the UK  what the top 10 most common lies told in job interviews are.

I’d rather hoped it might be “I was a sixer in the Bagshot wolf cubs troop” or “I have always dreamed of being a fast food outlet crew member” and “yes, I did scout Hampstead Heath on George Michael’s behalf”.  Alas and alack it was not to be so: the most common lie told in a job interview is the amount of money paid in a previous job cited by 67% of those polled.

Other common lies are as follows:

  1. Grades or qualifications – 61%
  2. Years of relevant experience – 58%
  3. Reason for leaving previous roles – 54%
  4. Commitment to career – 52%
  5. Hobbies and interests – 49%
  6. General skills – 44%
  7. Responsibilities in previous jobs – 38%
  8. Job titles in previous roles – 36%
  9. Marital status – 32%

Lying about one’s marital status is common at orgies and parties but why it would be so at a job interview is puzzling.

Yet, lying obviously does have its place in the world of work. For example many years ago, whilst in a magazine management meeting, a publishing director told a hapless colleague who had the miserable task of selling display advertising that: “If you can’t tell lies you shouldn’t be in sales.” And how very true that it is.

One only has to look at estate agent descriptions to see that. Also, having laboured in the salt mines of journalism for many a year, I can assure anyone reading this that it’s commonplace for hacks to tell porkies in pursuit of some wretched story or other. Or, in the case of the News of the World’s fake sheik to adopt a disguise to hoodwink some twerp-ish celebrity into confessing all about their tawdry lifestyles and ambitions.

Really it is up to employers to tackle this issue and to be rather more rigorous when vetting potential employees and to set the truth bar high in the workplace. Applicants, desperate for an edge in difficult job markets can hardly be blamed for embellishing their achievements, or inventing the odd one. Of course, I draw a line at surgeons, doctors, dentists, child care staff and postmen who should never be recruited without thorough vetting.

But there are lies and there are lies. I recall a young man of dubious appearance hired as a display sales manager, a job that involved much coming and going in a new company car, who told the sales manager who hired him that “yes, I do have a clean and current driving licence”.

That held good until he was given the keys to a Vauxhall Astra and was forced to confess that he’d never had a driving lesson let alone held a valid licence. He did though wear a mohair suit – a sure sign of a bounder and a cad.  I’d have never hired him on those grounds alone.

05
Oct
10

Employee assistance programmes face divorce day

There are now only 91 days left to the highlight of the employee assistance programme  (EAP) year – divorce day.

Traditionally this falls just after the festive season and this year, or rather next, will be no different. EAP provider Axa Icas claims more couples split up on the first working day after Christmas than on any other day.

Given the ever longer holidays enjoyed – if that’s the right word – by workers in the UK, the big day next time round will be January 4.

Jean Wilcock, operations manager, at AxaIcas’s life management services operation says:  “Couples often feel the need to stay together for the sake of their children over the festive period, and instead decide to make a fresh start in the New Year. For other couples, spending the holiday season together, which is an often pressurised time of year, can be the last straw for their relationship.”

Employers paying for EAP services for their staff have only themselves to blame – they should cut back Christmas holidays and put divorce day back where it belongs:  December 26. That could also bring the added bonus of fewer divorces and EAP calls, as couples have less time to spend at home rowing beneath the tinsel and mistletoe.

The worry for EAP providers is not so much how to cope with all the sobbing, wailing and ranting coming down the line from the distraught, but that employers looking to cut benefits costs may axe the EAP perk altogether.

This would not be wise:  The Employee Assistance Professionals’ Association reckons EAP cover can cost from just £7 per employee per year, though for that participating staff will get just a few hours of angst-ridden phone time. Still at that price it’s hardly a benefit that’s worth axeing.

Mystic Charlton predicts EAPs will ride out the age of austerity that we’re all in together with relative ease.

PS – I’ve still to hear the Slade Christmas anthem, always the traditional curtain raiser to the Festival of Shopping.  Readers – please advise when you hear this stirring seasonal song.

15
Jul
10

Merit, rather than diversity, is what won the cup

No one, other than Joachim Loew’s stylist, gave Germany much of a chance before the World Cup. It was a young team containing few players anyone outside the demi-monde of  Munchengladbach, and Loew’s cardigan adviser, had ever heard of.

Once they’d starting banging in der goals and passing the ball to their own players – please note Signor Capello –  that changed abruptly. And much was made of the team’s diversity by media commentators, especially when compared to previous German sides.

Of course diversity has been an HR growth industry in recent years and is seen by many HRers and Guardianistas as a “good thing”.

In sport though success is  not about meeting quotas, it’s – most obviously in team sports – first and foremost about selecting the best players available for the job in hand, England excepted.

Thus it was noteworthy that the best team at the tournament, Spain, was the amongst the least diverse, setting aside regional differences. Some of the worst – think England and France – were amongst the most ethnically diverse teams in the 2010 World Cup, whereas another failure, Italy, wasn’t.

So a hard lesson from the playing field is that selection on merit is a necessary condition for success and that diversity is incidental to that.

14
Jul
10

So much for the Acas code

At the time of its introduction last April,there was much speculation about what the impact of the Acas disciplinary code would be. Well, more than a year on, I think we have the answer: not a lot.

Figures from the Tribunal Service earlier this month reveal a steep rise in the number of  claims brought against employers in England, Scotland and Wales.  In the 12 months to the end of March 2010, 236,100 claims were brought in the employment tribunals, a large rise from the 151,000 claims last year.

These included  57,400 claims of unfair dismissal compared to 52,700 in the previous year and 40,941 in the  12 months to the  end of March 2008. The new code was targeted at unfair dismissals and did not include redundancies.

This is hardly what was hoped for when The Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures was ushered in by the Employment Act in April 2009.

Where did it all go wrong?

What the figures indicate is that many in HR have ignored the new-ish procedures altogether and that they were never going to make much difference anyway.

My view is though that the old three stage process is so well-embedded, especially at larger employers with sizeable HR departments, that many employers and their HR directors have pretty much ignored the 2009 Acas code and kept to the old ways. It’s what they know.

As for the overall surge in claims this may indicate that many in HR are not handling redundancies, especially large scale ones as well as they should. Also, employees generally are more aware of their rights. Older workers, for example, are more aware of ageism as a ground for bringing a complaint before the tribunal.

And many in HR will not apply redundancy procedures as they should leaving their employers wide open to action on the grounds of unfair dismissal etc..

Employers are far too trusting in the skills and knowledge of their HR department and would be well-advised, when there are relatively widespread lay-offs, to get an employment lawyer to oversee matters. It may mean shelling out more shekels than they’d like in the short term but should save time and money in the longer term as employees would – hopefully – have been given fewer grounds to take action at tribunal.

Sad to say many in HR, in my experience, just can’t cut the mustard when it comes to handling redundancies and dismissals and often provide dismissed employees with all the grounds they need to take action at tribunal.




BMR Editors - click for latest posts

Choose Industry Sector

Blog Stats

  • 9,662 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 579 other followers

Twitter – @ralphsavage


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 579 other followers