Employees at Three retail stores - which launched in 2003 as the UK’s first 3G only network - are set to receive their second pay rise in a year and in addition many will also be entitled to a £500 payment to help with soaring living costs.

Customer Advisers in the group’s 297 stores will receive a pay rise of 10.1% outside of London - to £11.15 - and by 8.1% in London to £12.32, all effective from 1st January 2023. Store staff can also earn up to a further 25% on their salary through bonuses and any staff earning less than £30,000 a year will be given a £500 one off payment in this month’s pay packet to help with the cost of living crisis.

Head office employees will see their annual pay rise by 7% on average next month.

The group, who employ more than 4,800 people in the UK, implemented pay rises of 12.6% for staff outside London last January. Taking these rises into account, hourly pay outside London has grown 23.7% and by 16.8% in London since December 2021.

In addition, staff receive other benefits, including private medical insurance and free flu vaccines, a free mobile device (or £200) every 18 months, up to 30% discounts at Superdrug, an annual subscription to mental health app, Headspace and access to Nudge, a financial advice tool.

Chief People Officer  at Three UK, Mark Redmond said:

“I would like to take this opportunity to thank all my colleagues for their hard work – especially during a particularly busy time in the lead up to Christmas. They are the backbone of our company, and it is right that we reward them for their efforts.”

After a successful trial of a four day working week, online lender Atom Bank has decided to make it a permanent fixture for employees.

In November 2021 the digital bank became the largest UK business and the first UK bank to take the step of offering their employees the option of working a 34 hour week over four days instead of five. The company also took part in a trial run by 4 Day Week Global in partnership with leading think tank Autonomy, the 4 Day Week UK Campaign and researchers at Cambridge University, Boston College and Oxford University where more than 3,000 people working for 70 organisations agreed to work a shorter week for six months with no loss of pay but with the commitment to maintain 100% productivity. 

Whilst some of the participating firms initially reported concerns, in August Atom announced that it had proved overwhelmingly positive in terms of both job satisfaction and productivity and more recently that they had “experienced great success with our trial”.

Now the trial has ended, Atom report that job applications are up by 49% and departures down by a fifth. According to the bank, customer goodwill has also increased, with scores up from 83 to 87 in November, reaching 7.7 on Trustpilot, the third highest rated UK bank.

Atom is the first of the organisations in the trial to announce a permanent move to four days.

Chief People Officer Anne-Marie Lister said the trial was “one of the most transformative things we’ve done as a company”.

She added:

“Since we launched our trial in November 2021, we have not only seen a more productive, healthier, and, crucially, happier workforce, but our customer service metrics are at record highs and more people are looking to start a career with Atom.”

She continued:

“It took a lot of planning, communication and listening to make it work, but having started out as a pilot we have now confirmed the new working structure into people’s contracts.

“Sceptics may argue that a business couldn’t grow under a four-day week, however this year has been one of continued progress and development at Atom. Customers have flocked to the bank in record numbers and the service we have offered them remains among the best in the country.”

After failing to reappoint an Indian lecturer to a job she had been doing for the previous five years, Southampton Employment Tribunal has concluded that the University of Portsmouth racially discriminated against her.

The Tribunal heard that Dr Sharma started a five-year fixed-term contract as Associate Head for Organisational Studies and Human Resources Management in the Business and Law faculty at the University of Portsmouth in 2016.

Although she was aware that she would have to reapply if she wanted to continue in the role, when her contract was almost up for renewal, she was not alerted to the fact that her job had been advertised.

Dr Sharma reapplied for the post and she and one other candidate were interviewed for the role. The two final interviewees were Dr Sharma and a white British woman, who was subsequently offered the job.

Sitting on the interview panel was Dr Sharma’s Line Manager, Prof Gary Rees, with whom the tribunal was told, Dr Sharma had a “difficult” relationship. Dr Sharma told the Tribunal that she had complained about the way she was treated by Prof Rees on a number of occasions in the past, such as when she had been asked about work-related items directly after the death of her father and how he had failed to support her adequately while she was caring for her critically ill son.

Dr Sharma also claimed that Prof Rees had backed a white colleague to take a further higher education qualification but had discouraged her from doing so.

On failing the interview process, Dr Sharma submitted a freedom of information request to the university, which revealed she was one of only two senior lecturers who were not reappointed to their roles when their contract came to an end. Of 12 academic senior management vacancies that had arisen since 2018, 11 had successfully been reappointed and all 12 were white candidates. Dr Sharma was the only BAME candidate who had reapplied for their post and been unsuccessful.

The Tribunal found there was no evidence that the new person given the role would have been a better fit than Dr Sharma and that the university had not been able to show the selection process had not been motivated by race. They decided that Prof Rees had treated Dr Sharma differently to white colleagues and the fact that she was not reappointed to her job was “extraordinary”.

Employment Judge Elizabeth Rayner said:

“We conclude that this is a case of subconscious discrimination. Whilst Prof Rees is clearly a respected senior academic his reluctance to recognise the skills and abilities and aspirations of Dr Sharma, and his failure to support and encourage her in the way that he supported and encouraged other white members of staff, points towards a subconscious or unconscious bias. We conclude that his involvement in the recruitment process and his subconscious bias means that the failure to recruit claimant was an act of race discrimination.”

A hearing to decide on compensation will take place at a later date.

With office Christmas parties in full swing, an article on Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner’s website has highlighted a recent case in a French appeal court and used the ruling to raise a point as to the extent to which employers can encourage or require employees to attend out of office events.

The Plaintiff, known only as Mr T, worked for a Paris-based management consultancy firm, Cubik Partners, as an adviser. He had joined the firm in 2011 and was promoted to director three years later. However, in 2015 he was dismissed on grounds of “professional inadequacy” and also - according to reports - accused of being a poor listener and difficult to work with.

Mr T’s reluctance to be part of the firms ‘team-building’ events and activities was seen by his employer as a lack of team spirit but Mr T contended that the out of office activities centred on the consumption of alcohol and excessive behaviour. He told France’s highest court - the Court of Cassation - that he was entitled to “refuse company policy based on incitement to partake in various excesses” and argued that he had a “right to be boring”.

The court agreed with Mr T’s argument, finding that staff at the company often engaged in “humiliating and intrusive practices” and that not all employees could be expected to get involved in such forms of “excess and misconduct”. The court ruled that these practices violated his “fundamental right to dignity and respect of private life” and that he was exercising his “freedom of expression.”

Finding in Mr T’s favour, the Court of Cassation awarded him €3,000 and a decision on whether he is entitled to €461,000 in damages will be made later.

Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner’s article advises that “the closer the “work” nature of an event, the more important it is for an employee to attend, and the more likely it is for an employer to expect attendance."

However, it continues that:

“Mr T’s case was unusual both in the alcohol-based nature of the activities and the open insistence of the employer to attend, but UK employers should take note.

Employees do have the right not to party, and it is ill-advised to go any further than encouragement. Attendance at events such as after work drinks, Christmas parties and team quizzes/lunches might be desirable, but for various reasons employers should be very cautious about being seen as coercing employees into attending, or implying that non-attendance might be career-limiting.”

Whilst December can be a stressful month at the best of times, according to survey data from people analytics company, Visier, more than a third (36%) of UK employees feel more stressed about the festive season this year when compared to last year.

Two thousand and six full time employees who work at UK organisations employing more than 250 people were surveyed online and mentioned the cost of living crisis (79%), being able to afford Christmas presents (55%) and fear of new year redundancies (18%) as key reasons why they were more anxious this year.

However, it is not just financial worries that are causing concerns this festive season, as more than two thirds (67%) of employees currently feel burnt out and a further 57% admit to feeling more burnt out than they did at this point last year. As more than a third (36%) of employees stated they still had more than 10 days of annual leave allowance left to use before the end of the year, Visier concluded this signalled “a clear cause of exhaustion and burnout.”

Ian McVey, EMEA MD at Visier said: 

“Stress is a major issue at work, and the repercussions can be huge for business performance. December should be a time of celebration, a time to unwind, spend time with the family, and celebrate the successes of the past year. But 2022 has not been a normal year. Understandably, employees are tired, and feeling concerned about the current economic climate we find ourselves in. The challenge for businesses is the knock-on impact that these feelings of fatigue will be having on employee morale, and overall business performance.”

They continued:

“Employees will look to their employers for support, direction and reassurance through the turbulent times ahead. Businesses must understand how teams are feeling, and engage employees in conversations about burnout - including the importance of taking time off - using workplace tools to gauge their stress levels. Leaders, including line managers, can then also work with individuals to reduce work-related exhaustion and provide support where it is needed most.”

Two female former employees of Twitter have filed a class-action lawsuit against the San Francisco-based company, alleging recent job cuts disproportionately targeted women.

Carolina Strifling and Willow Wren Turkal filed their complaint in Court in the Northern District of San Francisco, on behalf of themselves and other female employees who have lost their jobs since Elon Musk’s $44bn takeover of Twitter at the end of October. 

They argue that Twitter’s actions violate sex discrimination protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. 

The discrimination lawsuit states that Twitter laid off 1,271 or 57% of its female staff, compared to 1,350 or 47% cent of men at the company - even though the company employed more men before the layoffs - and therefore the layoffs disproportionately affected female employees.

According to the lawsuit, the disparity was even greater among Twitter’s engineers, where 63% of women were laid off, compared to 48% of men.

The lawsuit states:

“The mass termination of employees at Twitter has impacted female employees to a much greater extent than male employees – and to a highly statistically significant degree. Moreover, Elon Musk has made a number of publicly discriminatory remarks about women, further confirming that the mass termination’s greater impact on female employees resulted from discrimination.

Since Musk took over the company, Twitter have laid off around half of its 7,500 workforce in the US and hundreds of others have resigned, as they were unwilling to commit to “working long hours at high intensity.”

Strifling - who worked at Twitter since June 2015 - and Turkal - who worked at Twitter since June 2021 - state that the new policies asking employees to work longer hours would have also disproportionately affected women, “who are more often caregivers for children and other family members, and thus not able to comply with such demands”.

The lawsuit maintains that decisions about which employees would lose their jobs were “made under extremely hurried circumstances, with little if any regard given to employees’ job performance, qualifications, experience, and abilities”. Apparently some employees only became aware they would lose their job when they had their access to Twitter’s systems cut off and decisions over who was to be let go were reportedly made by a small group of managers working under Musk’s supervision, with some even working for other companies owned by Musk such as Tesla. 

At a press conference Shannon Liss-Riordan - the Claimants’ lawyer - said:

“It’s not a huge surprise unfortunately that women were hit so hard by these layoffs when Elon Musk was overseeing these incredibly ad hoc layoffs just in a matter of days.”

This lawsuit is the latest case as there have also been at least three complaints against the company filed with the US National Labor Relations Board. Other cases brought by former Twitter staff claim that the company failed to give employees and contractors notice before dismissing them; failed to pay severance and forced workers with disabilities out of their jobs.

A recent notice published by the Lord Chief Justice and Senior President of Tribunals has announced that certain Judges are no longer to be addressed as ‘Sir/Madam’ but simply as ‘Judge’.

Lord Burnett of Maldon, who is the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales and Sir Keith Lindblom, Senior President of Tribunals stated that “The move away from ‘sir or madam’ involves modern and simple terminology, reflecting the important judicial role whilst maintaining the necessary degree of respect.” 

The following Judges will in the future be addressed as Judge in Court or Tribunal hearings:

• Masters
• Upper Tribunal Judges
• Judges of the Employment Appeal Tribunal
• District Judges
• District Judges (Magistrates Courts)
• First-Tier Tribunal Judges
• Employment Judges

However, the change does not affect judicial titles, which “have a basis in statute, or the way in which judges record their decisions.” Furthermore, in the tribunals non-legal members should continue to be addressed as ‘sir or madam’.  

When questioned whether the changes were being made due to incidents or complaints of misgendering, a spokesperson for the Judicial Office told The Telegraph: “The change has been made for the reasons given, for simple and modern terminology. Not due to misgendering.”

The full message can be found here.

According to research involving 501 HR decision makers and conducted by Group Risk Development (GRiD)  - the industry body for the group risk protection sector - forty-six percent of employers do not report on the number of disabled people they employ.

Although the Government has yet to make this reporting mandatory, it is committed to reducing the disability employment gap and neglecting to count numbers of disabled employees threatens to worsen the disability employment gap.

Under the 2010 Equality Act you are considered disabled if you have a physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities. Employers must make reasonable adjustments to support disabled job applicants and employees, making sure people with disabilities or long-term health conditions can overcome any substantial disadvantages they may have in applying for, or doing a job and progressing in work.

According to the survey, 68% of the respondents feel that transparency on disability reporting in the workplace would help to reduce the disability employment gap by leading to more inclusive practices. Currently of those businesses that do perform disability reporting regarding their workforce, around a third (33%) do so to inform diversity and inclusion (D&I) practices and initiatives. Just under a third (30%) said they use the data to track progress made on their initiatives, while 17% use it to inform recruitment practice and 16% do so to inform talent management practice.

Katharine Moxham, spokesperson for GRiD, said:

“if and when reporting is made mandatory, it is likely to be for larger corporates initially, “but all employers need to have an understanding of the number of people they employ with a disability or long-term health condition, as the perceived wisdom is that what gets reported gets done”.

“However, there is likely to always be under-reporting as not all disabilities are immediately obvious – employers may believe that they have a good grasp on how many people with a disability they employ but those with a ‘non-visible’ or ‘hidden’ disability, such as a mental health condition, diabetes, or autism, could be overlooked – and many employees don’t want to disclose their condition or don’t see themselves as having any particular need that shouldn’t be addressed by their employer wanting to ensure that everyone they employ is enabled to do the best that they can.”

She concluded by saying:

“With the right support, employers will have access to a much wider pool of talent than perhaps they previously had and may attract a new cohort of highly motivated candidates offering the skills and knowledge that they need to benefit their business.

“Providing this support will help companies become Disability Confident and also sends a clear message to other staff, namely that the employer takes the health and wellbeing of its workforce seriously - and this has great benefits to wider business objectives as the workforce will be more reflective of the population as a whole and enable greater insight.”

Leading law firm Irwin Mitchell have released the results of a survey they carried out concerning “quiet firing”.

Quiet firing is a trend that has not yet had the exposure of “quiet quitting” - a term to describe employees only doing the work they’re paid to do and who put no more effort into their jobs than absolutely necessary.

Quiet firing is defined as negative behaviour by an employer that makes an employee feel like they’re no longer wanted, leaving them with no choice but to resign.

Irwin Mitchell’s survey was carried out on over 2,400 respondents and revealed the startling fact that 90% of people don’t know what quiet firing is, additionally awareness differed vastly between different demographic groups. Those with the least awareness being unskilled manual workers (95%), whereas students are most aware of quiet firing (21%).

The survey questioned respondents as to whether they have experienced certain inappropriate workplace behaviours, such as being left out of a meeting and being passed over for promotion. The survey showed that quiet firing is most noticeable amongst women, with 28% stating they had left a job because they were made to feel uncomfortable by someone at work.

Additionally, a quarter of women said that their role had been changed without proper explanation or consultation, creating an unnerving and uncertain working environment, 23% had been actively ignored by their manager and 23% have purposely had information withheld from them, making them want to leave their roles.

Irwin Mitchell point out that the lack of awareness around quiet firing poses questions and raises serious concerns as to whether employees (and employers) are able to identify any unlawful behaviour in the workplace which would give the employee the right to bring an employment claim - such as constructive dismissal. 

They have listed examples of behaviour that can form the grounds for constructive dismissal as follows:

• Being made to feel uncomfortable
• Being ignored by your manager
• Stopping internal communication
• A sudden or unexplained change of role or responsibilities
• Being left out of socials
• Being left out of meetings
• Being passed over for promotion
• Lack of feedback
• Having information withheld
• Being undermined in a meeting

Deborah Casale, Partner in Irwin Mitchell’s London employment team, stated:

“The widespread knowledge gap among employees around quiet firing is concerning. This type of behaviour can form grounds for constructive dismissal if it breaches the implied term of trust and confidence in the employment relationship and the employee has more than two years of service.

Employees should be aware of their legal rights in these situations and should take advice at an early stage to protect their position. Likewise, employers need to be aware of the dangers of quiet firing.”

According to recent research data, between June 2021 and June 2022 the number of employees receiving a bonus increased to 25.9%, up from 22% previously.

Cendex, part of XpertHR,  carried out the survey and the data covered 403 organisations, which collectively paid bonuses to 356,563 employees. It showed that whilst the average bonus awarded across all individuals was £2,519, women are not only less likely than men to be awarded a bonus but also receive less money than their male counterparts when they do.

Almost one in three (31.3%) male employees received a bonus in the year to June 2022, compared with just 23.7% of females. Additionally, men received an average of £2,907, compared to £1,761 - which was the average bonus awarded to female employees.

This inequality was also shown to widen with age, as bonus payments for women tailed off as they hit their early thirties, whereas this did not happen with men until they reached their early fifties. At this point, they received an average bonus of £4,929.23 - which is over double the amount received by women of the same age, who received an average of £2,416.46.

What was not as surprising - the research found - is that the value and the likelihood of actually receiving a bonus increased with job seniority.  Over 38% of Directors received an average payout of £61,006, compared to just over 25% of staff, whose average payment was just £1,282.

Sheila Attwood, Managing Editor, Pay and Benefits, Cendex, said:

“Given the current cost-of-living crisis and wider economic uncertainty, money is a huge source of stress for many workers. If an organisation is in the position to award a bonus to employees, it’s vital that they approach it fairly and with a strong understanding of why a bonus is being awarded at a given level. This is especially important given the disparity between men and women’s bonuses, which could be an indication of certain work being valued more than others.”