No change on the Default Retirement Age before the general election

A fast-track attempt to abolish the default retirement age has failed, following a decision by the House of Lords to drop a proposed amendment to the equality bill.Liberal Democrat peer Anthony Lester recently tabled an amendment to the bill in a bid to scrap the default retirement age (DRA) before the forthcoming general election.

The current law enables employers to force workers to retire once they reach the age of 65, a regulation that many age campaigners and employer groups – including the CIPD – have been seeking to abolish.But a debate in the Lords this week saw the revision withdrawn for fear of delaying the equality bill from making it onto the statute books.Addressing the House, Lord Lester said: “We on these benches have been pressing for many years for the abolition of the default retirement age of 65, and it is a core policy for us. However, we also have another overriding requirement, which is to get this bill through.”Several peers had pushed for a delay in the decision to scrap the DRA until a proposed government review on the policy – scheduled to take place this year – was completed.

Speaking earlier in the debate, Labour peer Baroness Muriel Turner said the equality bill was an opportunity for an immediate review of the DRA. She added: “The demand now is that flexible working arrangements should be available so that older people can continue in appropriate forms of work, which would be to their advantage. The employer will benefit from having older people with experience, skills and more commitment in the workforce. I emphasise that this should be a matter of choice for older people and should not be imposed on them as a result of poverty or because there are inadequate pension arrangements.”Baroness Patricia Morris, shadow minister for women, said: “The increase in life expectancy means that someone aged 65 can still be at the top of their game and be an effective, able, competent, experienced and valuable worker. We feel we could support the removal of the default retirement age in principle.“However, we believe that there are a great many complications with removing the default retirement age, especially in this time of very bad recession. We are worried that moves to remove the DRA might have a further detrimental impact on the large numbers of young people who are out of work at present.”

67% of employees don't trust Senior Managers - why so high?

New research published today by the CIPD shows that only 33% of employees trust their Senior Managers.

There is no doubt that a large percentage of Senior Managers in the recession have struggled and or omitted to communicate key messages back to the workforce; or simply didn't communicate at all, thus engendering lack of trust and suspicion.

This recession has hopefully highlighted to Senior Management, that learning how to communicate challenging messages including the negative ones is an important business discipline. Some young business leaders didn't have the skill set, as they had only experienced a working life in a buoyant market and therefore have struggled.

Going forward, we hope that these Senior Managers will source the training and coaching they need to harness this experience and positively use the lessons learnt to transfer their battle scars into to communication patterns which support and retain their best employees as we slowly emerge out of recession.

Retention - that's another blog for another day!

74% of HR Panel in favour of Childcare Vouchers

According to a new HR opinion panel undertaken by Personnel Today 74% surveyed said that childcare vouchers were an important benefit offering to employees.

We are delighted at Gordon Brown's turnaround and thoroughly endorse childcare voucher schemes. This is a key benefit, allowing working parents to return to work, whilst also acting as a key incentive to attract and retain employees.

The best provider we know in the market is Terri Bourne Director at Family Vouchers http://www.familyvouchers.co.uk/. Terri a former teacher and CIPD postgraduate, understands perfectly the needs of parents and the commercial needs of the businesses employing them. Contact her at the above site for further details.

Performance related appraisal's for temps

Under new rules laid out before parliament yesterday regarding agency workers under The Agency Workers Directive, the feeling is that employers could end up vastly reducing the amount of temp workers they engage.

After a twelve week assignment period agency workers will get the same rights of pay, holiday and other basic working conditions as permanent staff. How will this work for employers and recruiters alike? Kevin Green REC Chief Executive said professional recruiters would "bear the brunt" of making this work on the ground. I couldn't agree more. The majority of temp recruiters I am engaging with are simply unaware of their responsibilities, the changes necessary to accommodate as well as the absolute need to enter into dialogue now with their end users before its too late. Clients may well take the route of housing their own in-house "casual bank" which could be disastrous for the temporary recruitment market.

As part of the new rules employers will have to include temps in performance appraisals designed to set pay for employees. It will be interesting to see how that manifests itself on the ground and in operations.

Penalties will be strict for avoidance tactics by employers seeking to to try and reduce the 12 week qualifying period. Fines for avoidance could up to £5,000.

Seminars & Solutions Blog

htpp://polls.linkedin/com/p/74859/vrybx

How will the proposed removal of the state retirement age effect your business?

With the Equality and Human Rights Commission lobbying government hard to abolish and remove the state retirement age for men and women here in the UK what effect will that have for you in your business?

Well known high street retailers have harnessed the human capital benefits of the more mature worker : ASDA and B & Q already allow their employees to work beyond retirement age if they so wish.

But for those businesses and industries that historically have a younger profile, will they change how they work, select and recruit? I am particularly interested in hearing the views of recruiters. Will you hire more mature employees to recruit older candidates? How are your clients reacting to this potential change? Where will the benefits be shown to your business in having a wider age profile?

Take our poll at http://polls.linkedin.com/p/74859/vrybx and we'll publish the findings to you.

Many thanks.

Line Managers understanding of use it or loose it

Following on from our last post about the recent findings of the Employment Appeals Tribunal over annual leave carry over, it is really important that this message gets set out clearly to line managers especially over the difference between this and the re-claim and carry over of holiday and sickness.

If a member of staff is off sick whilst they are on holiday, European case law has directed that employees can re-claim that holiday and carry it over to next years entitlement if necessary.

However, in order for this to apply employees must conform with current sickness reporting procedures i.e phone in and notify their employee as a matter of urgency and before a certain time (most policies are before 9 a.m. in the morning, unless it is shift work). A return to work interview needs to be undertaken and self-certification forms completed and or a sick note filed.

It is important that issues are communicated and clarified to your line managers over holiday leave entitlements and the difference for holiday roll over if the employee is off sick during that time. This will avoid breaches of Working Time Regulations and or potential Disability Discrimination claims being brought against organisations for any breaches. It is vital that your re-visit your policies and procedures to ensure that they reflect these changes.

Use it or loose it for annual leave

Workers must comply with rules for requesting annual leave even if it means they might or face losing their holiday entitlement at the end of the year, a ruling from the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) has confirmed.

An employer is entitled to require sufficient notice for staff to take holidays, and it is an employee’s own fault if they do not use up their annual leave, the EAT found in the case of Lyons v Mitie.

The case involved a claim for holiday pay from an employee whose request to take annual leave did not comply with notice requirements set out in his employment contract. The claimant’s employment contract said that all applications for holiday must be made on a holiday request form and that the form “wherever possible should be submitted at least four weeks prior to the commencement of the holiday”.

It went on to state that: “Applications for holidays at shorter notice will be considered on their merits and subject to staffing requirements.”Shortly before the holiday year end, the claimant asked to take his outstanding holiday entitlement, although he did not comply with the four-week notice requirement. The holiday request was refused. The employee argued that the notice requirements set out in the contract effectively prevented him taking his full entitlement before the year end and resigned.However, the tribunal found in favour of the employer and rejected the employee’s claim for holiday pay."The law regarding whether or not workers are entitled to holiday under the Working Time Regulations even when they haven't complied with an employer's notice rules has been unclear,” said Owen Warnock, partner at law firm Eversheds. “This decision brings some welcome clarity to the issue and confirms that a worker must give the notice required by his contract in order to benefit from the rights under the regulations."The EAT cautioned employers that they must not apply their rules in such a way as to effectively defeat a worker's entitlement to annual leave in any given year.

In addition, if an employee is forced into applying for holiday late in the year because of sickness, European law may well require the employer to permit him or her to take the leave. However ,for the majority of employees the moral of this tale is 'use it - and comply with your employer's holiday rules - or lose it'."

*Source People Management

Tribunal rules on IVF treatment clarified

IVF treatment rules clarified at Tribunal...
Sahota v The Home Office and Pipkin FACTS Immigration officer Parminder Sahota was experiencing difficulties becoming pregnant and had begun a course of IVF treatment which had been unsuccessful on two occasions. Sahota issued a complaint of sex discrimination in the employment tribunal claiming that she had been subjected to various detriments because she was undergoing IVF treatment. DECISION The employment tribunal found that the acts Sahota complained of either did not amount to a detriment or harassment or, even if they arose out of it or of circumstances connected with it, were not done on the grounds that Sahota was undergoing IVF treatment.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the findings of the employment tribunal. It also went on to discuss the extent to which discrimination on the ground that an employee is receiving IVF treatment is to be regarded as discrimination on the grounds of sex or pregnancy. The EAT said that it is long recognised that discrimination against a woman on the ground of her pregnancy is direct sex discrimination and there is no need to identify a male comparator. However, the case-law is also clear that when a worker is absent as a result of a gender-specific illness, even one attributable to pregnancy or confinement, less favourable treatment on account of that absence does not constitute sex discrimination if a male worker would have been treated in the same way.

However, the EAT went on to say that a question does arise as to whether the protection afforded to pregnant employees extends to those undergoing IVF treatment who are not pregnant, either because treatment has begun but the ovum has not yet been implanted, or because an implantation has failed. Sahota argued that it was wrong to treat the position of a female employee undergoing such treatment as comparable with that of a man undergoing medical treatment, and that to subject a female employee to a detriment on the grounds that she is undergoing such treatment constitutes direct sex discrimination.

The EAT considered the findings of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Mayr v Backerei und Konditorei Gerhard Flocker OHG. In Mayr the ECJ held that an employee undergoing IVF treatment would not be protected under the Pregnant Workers' Directive until implantation of an ovum had occurred. However, at an advanced stage of IVF treatment (that is between the retrieval of the ova and the immediate transfer of the fertilised ova into the uterus) an employee would be protected under the Equal Treatment Directive. In these circumstances it would be direct sex discrimination to subject a female employee to a detriment because she was undergoing that particular stage of IVF treatment. The EAT said that the narrow formulation of the ECJ's judgment was deliberate and ensured legal certainty. It therefore rejected Sahota's argument that protection of female employees should be widened to the entire duration of IVF treatment.

IMPLICATIONS

In the UK, pregnant workers are protected under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA) and the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA). The SDA explicitly prohibits discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy. The ERA protection includes making it automatically unfair to dismiss a woman when the reason (or principal reason) for the dismissal is connected to her pregnancy. In light of the EAT's decision, a woman undergoing IVF treatment will only receive protection relating to pregnancy if she is indeed pregnant. However, it will still constitute sex discrimination to treat a woman at an advanced stage of IVF treatment less favourably simply because she is receiving that treatment.

IBM wins gay friendly top employer of the year

IBM has been named the country's most gay friendly employer by gay rights campaigner Stonewall in its 2010 Workplace Equality Index.

The top ten list in full is:

1. IBM
2. Hampshire Constabulary
3. Ernst & Young
4. Brighton & Hove City Council
5. Goldman Sachs
6. Home Office
7. London Borough of Tower Hamlets
8. Manchester City Council
9. Kent Police
10.Nacro

Flexibility over new compulsory pension scheme (NEST)

Small businesses are to be given flexibility over the introduction of the government’s new compulsory workplace pension scheme.
The scheme is to be known as the National Employment Savings Trust (NEST), a change from the original Personal Accounts, and is aimed at employees aged over 22, earning between £5,035 and £33,540 and who do not have an occupational pension scheme.
Described as a “landmark reform” by Pensions Minister, Angela Eagle, the scheme will see all employees who are not already members of a qualifying occupational pension scheme enrolled into the fund.
The scheme is to commence in October 2012 when the largest businesses – those employing 120,000 staff or more – will begin enrolling workers.
However, smaller firms will join the scheme on a phased basis over the next three years. Start-up businesses formed from 2012 won’t be required to implement a NEST fund until 2016. Auto-enrolment is expected to be fully introduced by 2017.
Employer contributions will also be implemented on a staggered schedule. Employers will be required to contribute a minimum of 1 per cent of an employee’s gross salary to the fund as from 2012. That will rise to 2 per cent from 2016 before reaching 3 per cent in October 2017.
Announcing the details, Yvette Cooper, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said: “Even during these difficult economic times, employers, industry and unions agreed with us that these reforms were vital in giving millions of people the chance to save in a pension for the first time.
“All employers will be required to pay into a pension for their workers for the first time. We have responded to the concerns of business to make the introduction of these reforms as straightforward as possible. Start-up businesses will be given valuable extra time to prepare for these changes as we come out of recession.”
Currently, some 14 million people get no contribution from their employer towards a pension and around 7 million people are not saving enough for their retirement.
Ms Cooper concluded: “These reforms will give everyone the chance to build up a pension. It is the biggest change to support for working people since the introduction of the minimum wage.”
Angela Eagle, the Pensions Minister, commented: “These landmark reforms, on a scale unprecedented anywhere in the world, will ensure millions of workers on low and moderate incomes will be able to save for their retirement with a guaranteed new minimum contribution from their employer, many for the first time.
“It is essential we get the foundations right and continue to focus on minimising any process burdens on business. With the publication of the regulations today, we take a big step closer to automatic enrolment from 2012, moving from consulting with employers into a phase where we explain in clear and simple terms what their obligations will be.”
Some experts, however, have cast doubt on the ability of the scheme to provide a viable retirement income.
Ros Altmann, of the London School of Economics and a former pensions adviser to the government, warned that employers could opt to reduce contributions to the basic level and that some low-paid workers could lose out because their NEST savings may disbar them from means-tested benefits in retirement.
Ms Altmann said: “Employers will cut back towards the minimum. And many workers also face the danger that employers will cut their pension contributions back to the NEST minimum, which is less than half of current average employer pension contributions.
“This levelling down effect is already starting, as the government has given employers a new target to aim at – as long as they are putting in 3 per cent that’s all they need to do.”
She added: “The image of a nest egg is misleading because so many will find their nest is empty as they have saved merely to replace means tested benefits they would otherwise have had.”
The Forum of Private Business (FSB) welcomed the additional time granted smaller firms.
Nick Palin, the FSB’s director of human resources, said: “We were listened to and our initial fears that these compulsory pensions contributions would hit small businesses too quickly for them to adjust have, to some degree, been addressed.”
But Mr Palin expressed concerns that small firms, which account for 59 per cent of the private sector working population, will ultimately bear the brunt of the pensions crisis and that job creation will suffer as a result.
Katja Hall, the CBI’s director of employment policy, agreed on the issue of phasing: “The changes announced today show that the government has listened to businesses. We are pleased that firms will face fewer short deadlines and less paperwork than was previously proposed, particularly given the challenging economic conditions.”
But Ms Hall argued that, with discussions still taking place about how the reforms will affect firms with existing pension schemes, the government must ensure it does not make the system too onerous for companies who are already doing more than the law will require as it could encourage them to cut contributions to the legal minimum.

Tax Relief on Nursery Vouchers

Gordon Brown had revised his proposal to withdraw the income tax and NI exemption on employer provided childcare vouchers.
Currently employees are exempt from tax and NIC on childcare vouchers provided by employers. The exemption is available on the first £55 a week of vouchers per employee, as long as a range of conditions are met. Any excess over the £55 is liable to tax and to NIC (both employees' and employers' contributions).
In a change to the original announcement Gordon Brown has now said:
‘I have already made clear that no family currently in receipt of tax relief for their childcare vouchers will see any change in the support they receive. But following our discussions I can now also say that we will retain tax relief for new childcare vouchers issued in the future. However, there still remains a concern that a disproportionate benefit is accruing to higher rate taxpayers. So in order to ensure that this tax relief is given on a fairer basis to all families, we will ensure that all taxpayers get the same income tax relief as basic rate taxpayers do currently. This will take place from April 2011 and will not affect those receiving vouchers issued before that date.'
Under the revised proposals it appears that from April 2011, vouchers will not attract the full current tax and NIC exemptions as their tax relief will be restricted to the basic rate. Higher rate taxpayers will be liable to tax on the vouchers at their marginal rate of tax of 20%, being the difference between basic rate of 20% and the higher rate of 40%.
Vouchers issued prior to April 2011 will be unaffected by the change.

The Court of Protection could be open to public scrutiny

The Court of Protection, which looks after the affairs of people suffering from mental incapacity, could be opened up to public scrutiny.
People applying to manage the affairs of elderly or vulnerable relatives have found the court — and, in particular, its administrative arm, the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) — bureaucratic, complex and intrusive. At present the court receives 1,800 applications a month, all handled by judges. The average time to reach a hearing is 14 weeks.
Denzil Lush, the senior judge in charge of the running of the court, told The Times in a recent interview that he would favour bringing it into line with other family courts and allowing media access, subject to reporting restrictions. He said: "I don't have a problem with the media being present. There would, however, have to be anonymity for the vulnerable elderly people involved, the details of whose financial affairs were being exposed. I don't think that they would want that all over the newspapers."
Sir Mark Potter, the most senior family judge and president of the Court of Protection, last month set up a review of its rules and media access is expected to be on the agenda.
A test case is also looming over media access to the court, which has assigned responsibility to relatives and friends to manage assets for vulnerable people totalling about £3.2 billion.

Recession weary employees seeking greener grass

A third of UK employees (33%) say they have not felt valued by their employer during the recession and would leave for another job if they could, according to new research.
According to the poll of 950 workers commissioned by PricewaterhouseCoopers, of those respondents who said their employer had shown appreciation for them in the downturn, 41% said they had no plans to leave as a consequence of this loyalty while just 23% said they would consider leaving regardless.
Michael Rendell, partner and leader, human resource services at PricewaterhouseCoopers, said: "Workers' ambitions to find new roles could be good news in terms of creating movement and opportunities in a rather stagnant labour market and within companies - organisations will need to strike a balance between enjoying the reduction in employment costs that attrition can bring with the need to avoid overstretching existing staff.

Potential Changes to Tier 1 migrant workers

The Migration Advisory Committee – the body that advises the UK Border Agency on immigration issues – recently issued a report suggesting changes to Tier 1 of the points-based system. If the changes go ahead, they could have wide-reaching and mostly positive implications for organisations employing migrant workers.

Highly skilled migrants Tier 1 consists of a number of sub-categories but most of the suggestions relate to Tier 1 (general), which applies to highly skilled migrants. Under this category, points are awarded for migrants’ qualifications, age, past earnings and UK experience. Successful applicants are able to come to the UK to work either as an employee or on a self-employed basis. The highly skilled migrants’ arrangements have come under fire in the past for setting the bar for qualifications too high. However, if the proposals are implemented by the UK Border Agency, they may go some way to assisting skilled non-EEA migrants entry to the UK and the employers who wish to recruit them.

Under the current rules, individuals must have a masters degree or above to qualify. This prevents a number of highly skilled individuals, such as lawyers and directors, from applying under this category even though they have highly valued experience. The committee has proposed that points should be awarded for a bachelor’s degree – both employers and migrants are likely to welcome this recommendation.

There have also been concerns about the current maintenance requirements. Migrants must have personal funds of £2,800 and to have held these funds for at least three months. If they have dependants, they must have even more money. Many employers have found that it can be difficult for migrants from countries where earnings are generally lower to satisfy these requirements, especially since the requirements continue to apply even if the employees will be receiving a good salary in the UK and will clearly be able to support themselves and their dependants. The arrangements favour migrants from relatively wealthy countries, such as America and Australia, over those from Africa, Asia and South America. In response to this, the committee has recommended that the UK Border Agency looks at employers acting as guarantors if migrants are unable to meet maintenance requirements. This opens up applications to a wider pool of people.

Another recommendation is that individuals who have earned the equivalent of £150,000 during the 12 months prior to applying would automatically qualify for Tier 1 (general). This will be welcomed by high earners and employers looking to engage them.

The committee has also proposed awarding points for age to prospective migrants under 40 years old. Again, employers will welcome this. It reflects the fact that employees in their mid-30s still have many years of working life to contribute to UK organisations. The Migration Advisory Committee has not proposed any whole-scale changes to points awarded in the various categories or to earnings thresholds. It has not, for example, suggested that previous achievements or work experience outside of the UK should be taken into account. So, even if the recommendations are implemented, the focus remains on young, high earners with a degree.

This will disappoint some employers and prospective migrants, particularly those in sectors where salaries are lower but where there is still a need to recruit people with the necessary business experience. Those employers will have to look to Tier 2 and see whether it is possible to sponsor the migrant instead. That is often a less attractive option for employers as it means that they must register as a sponsor with the UK Border Agency and take on a number of onerous obligations.

Two thirds of British Workers would rather leave than be re-interviewed

Two-thirds of British workers would rather leave their employer than reapply for their own job, new figures have revealed.In a survey of 1,000 employees, 64 per cent said they would focus on job hunting elsewhere, rather than concentrate on re-interviewing for their current role if forced to do so.The finding shows how de-motivating this process can be, yet it is an increasingly common method of making redundancies. The research found that 43 per cent of workers believe there is a risk they will be asked to reapply for their own job in 2010, as organisations continue to restructure in the recession.Keep Britain Working, the independent job campaign group who conducted the study, called on employers to offer more support to staff confronted with the prospect of job insecurity.“Employers must appreciate just how stressful it is to be asked to apply for your own job, and make sure they support employees,” said a spokesperson for Keep Britain Working. “Yet retaining talented, motivated staff is more important than ever when cuts have to be considered. Professional HR expertise can be invaluable to help organisations and staff through difficult times.“To be successful, employers need to communicate even more than before and share the full financial context and acknowledge the contribution made by all staff – including those they may have had to let go.”

Gay-friendly accolade for Lloyds TSB in Stonewall list - People Management Magazine Online

Gay-friendly accolade for Lloyds TSB in Stonewall list - People Management Magazine Online

The top ten most gay friendly organisations to work for in the Stonewall List are:

1. Lloyds TSB
2. Hampshire Constabulary
3. Brighton & Hove Council
4. Kent Police
5. NACRO (last years winner
=5.Transport for London
7. London Borough of Tower Hamlets
8. Manchester City Council
=8. Merseyside Police
10. Home Office

Snow : Employers urged not to push staff safety risking dangerous conditions

Employers must be flexible during the harsh weather conditions and should not force staff to "risk life and limb" getting to work, business groups have warned.

As the cold snap continues, with up to 40cm of snow forecast overnight for some parts of the UK, employers have been encouraged to be more aware of staff needs and to allow them greater flexibility over working hours.

Hundreds of schools across the country have been forced to close, leaving working parents with caring problems, trains have been cancelled, and motorists are being warned to make only essential journeys.
Rebecca Clake, organisation and resourcing adviser at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), said: "Employers should make clear to employees that they should not risk life and limb to get to work, and be understanding if employees need to leave early to avoid getting stranded unnecessarily on their way home - particularly if conditions worsen during the working day."She added if staff were unable to get in to work and could not work from home employers must be consistent in their approach about whether they were granted special leave or required to take annual leave.

The Forum of Private Business (FPB) has warned the cost of staff absenteeism due to snow could reach at least £230m. The FPB's research manager, Tom Parryhome, warned if employers were encouraging staff to work from home they had to ensure houses met required health and safety standards.He said: "Home working might be seen as a solution [to the snow] but business owners should be aware that it is their responsibility to ensure that employees' houses meet health and safety standards."

The CIPD also warned that staff required to drive for their jobs should not be pressurised into doing so.Clake said: "Where employees are required to drive for work, employers also have a health and safety duty to ensure drivers are allowed extra time to complete journeys and factor in alternative routes - and that they are not pressurised to complete any journeys made dangerously difficult by the weather."

Meanwhile, the Trades Union Congress (TUC) has warned employers against withholding pay or forcing staff to take holiday if they miss work because of the snow.The TUC's general secretary Brendan Barber said: "Scrooge bosses who dock pay and take away holiday are needlessly adding to their business woes by creating resentment among staff. Workers who have been prevented from getting to work despite their best efforts should not have to foot the bill for the bad weather conditions."

Arctic Weather conditions and the duty of care

Arctic conditions don't have to leave UK workplaces snowed under.

The severe weather already affecting much of Britain and school closures affecting parts of the country do not necessarily have to mean major problems for employers, suggests the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. A combination of technology and common sense on the part of employers and employees can minimise the impact for many argues the Institute.

Where people can log in to work from home - or where the time can be used to focus on thinking time, there is a real opportunity to minimise the cost to business of the travel chaos. However, many employers will be affected, with many job roles not able to be fulfilled through home working and other employees left with extra childcare responsibilities as schools close down because of the snow. In these cases difficult decisions on how to manage employees who have not been able to make it into work will have to be made.

Rebecca Clake, Organisation and Resourcing Adviser at the CIPD, said:"Employers need to carefully consider opportunities and options available if the weather conditions do stop employees making it in. Many companies that have put in place the technology and management practices to allow home working, reap the benefits at a time like this. "The crude millions-of-pounds estimates of the cost to the economy of bad weather often don't take into account the millions of motivated workers who will be remotely working or if access to emails is not possible using the time to focus on planning or to reflecting on work processes and practices.Managing employees unable to get to work or affected by school closures"Of course, many types of work simply cannot be done from home, and some employers may struggle to operate their business. These employers will be working hard to get those employees who have made it in to operate the business as best they can, even if that means turning their hands to tasks not normally part of their day jobs.

"Employees can reasonably be expected to do their best to get into work on foot, or where travel is less badly affected. Where employees are genuinely unable to get in, and this can be demonstrated to the employer, decisions will have to be taken as to whether to allow line managers to use their discretion in granting special leave, whether to require employees to take annual leave, or whether to shut down operations altogether. There is no right or wrong answer to these questions, but employers must take care to be consistent in the way that they make the necessary decisions - guided by existing policies where relevant.The need for common sense"Overall, much of this comes down to common sense. Employees should have the sense to try to get in without taking unnecessary risks. But also to speak to their employers if they are unable to get in, and not just treat the snow as automatic permission to take an unannounced holiday.

Equally, employers should make clear to employees that they should not risk life and limb to get to work, and be understanding if employees need to leave early to avoid getting stranded unnecessarily on their way home - particularly if conditions worsen during the working day. Where employees are required to drive for work, employers also have a health and safety duty to ensure drivers are allowed extra time to complete journeys and factor in alternative routes - and that they are not pressurised to complete any journeys made dangerously difficult by the weather."

Time off for union rep guidelines come into effect

New Acas guidelines on time off for union representatives to help them undertake their union duties came into effect on 1 January.

The new statutory code of practice, which replaces an earlier code on the same subject, has been updated to provide further guidance on the provision of cover when union representatives take time off, payment for time off, and the responsibilities of both line managers and union representatives in ensuring time off arrangements are effective.
Under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, union representatives have a statutory right to paid time off to carry out trade union duties and to undertake trade union training.

Ed Sweeney, chair of Acas, said: "Union representatives play an important role in the modern workplace. To carry out their role it is however essential that union representatives receive appropriate time off.

"The new code will help both union representatives and the organisations they work for understand the law relating to time off, and also manage in a fair and effective manner the practical day-to-day issues that arise when requests for time off are made."

The Acas code states: "Employers and unions have a joint responsibility to ensure that agreed arrangements work to mutual advantage by specifying how reasonable time off for union duties and activities and for training will work."

While a breach of the code will not automatically render an employer liable to legal proceedings, employers cannot afford to ignore the code as its provisions are admissible in evidence in employment tribunal proceedings.

New ACAS guidelines for union reps comes into effect

New Acas guidelines on time off for union representatives to help them undertake their union duties came into effect on 1 January.

The new statutory code of practice, which replaces an earlier code on the same subject, has been updated to provide further guidance on the provision of cover when union representatives take time off, payment for time off, and the responsibilities of both line managers and union representatives in ensuring time off arrangements are effective.

Under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, union representatives have a statutory right to paid time off to carry out trade union duties and to undertake trade union training.

Ed Sweeney, chair of Acas, said: "Union representatives play an important role in the modern workplace. To carry out their role it is however essential that union representatives receive appropriate time off.
"The new code will help both union representatives and the organisations they work for understand the law relating to time off, and also manage in a fair and effective manner the practical day-to-day issues that arise when requests for time off are made."

The Acas code states: "Employers and unions have a joint responsibility to ensure that agreed arrangements work to mutual advantage by specifying how reasonable time off for union duties and activities and for training will work."

While a breach of the code will not automatically render an employer liable to legal proceedings, employers cannot afford to ignore the code as its provisions are admissible in evidence in employment tribunal proceedings.