According to data supplied by the law firm Fox & Partners, employment tribunals involving allegations of bullying went up by 44 per cent – from 581 to 835 – in the last 12 months. During the pandemic, the claims briefly reduced.

Fox & Partners also found that virtual working created difficult to identify patterns of bullying such as cutting remarks made on video calls, which are problematic to address; deliberately leaving colleagues out of remote meetings and using messaging apps to gossip during colleagues’ presentations.

The law firm added that whilst organisations are finding it a struggle to recruit new staff, a bullying culture could mean that they lose crucial talent.

Ivor Adair - Partner at Fox & Partners - stated:

“Tackling workplace bullying is no easy task, particularly in changing work environments. The record number of bullying claims is a worrying sign that some leadership teams have struggled to maintain healthy workplaces during the shift to hybrid working.”

He then added that senior managers must detect and address problems at all levels before conflict escalates - advising:

“Employers should consider a suite of techniques that will effect lasting change, such as coaching, or more structured supervision and pastoral care programs.”

Other recommendations that emerged from the research were encouraging more effective and varied methods of communication and giving senior staff training with guidelines on how to provide feedback to avoid misinterpretation.

Ivor Adair added:

“Employers must also be willing to enforce company policies to protect and support colleagues at risk, if workplace cultures are to be improved.”

Rebecca Holt - Co-Founder and Director of Working Mindset - said it was the responsibility of managers and leaders to create psychological safety in workplaces “because their position of power naturally impacts their ability to speak up.”

She added:

“Leaders need the skills to invite opinions, ideas and challenges.”

Rebecca Holt also pointed out that leaders carry the tasks of ‘making people feel included, making people feel safe to learn, making them feel safe to contribute and challenge the status quo without fear of being embarrassed or punished in some way.’ 

Alan Price - CEO of BrightHR - remarked that employers’ failure to deal with bullying issues could be seen as them not complying with their duty of care towards employees - which could then result in employment tribunals.

He stated:

“While it isn’t possible to bring a claim directly to an employment tribunal on the grounds of bullying, if the behaviour relates to one of the protected characteristics, then an employee can make a claim of discrimination under the harassment provisions.”

In June, Visier, a global leader in people analytics, conducted a poll on 2,010 employees - finding that 71 per cent of British respondents said their employers failed to keep up their pay with inflation.

In addition, 43 per cent of respondents stated that they felt they could be forced to find alternative ways of making money if their workplace did not do more to support them, with 17 per cent saying that they plan to hand in their notice at work to take on a new role offering a higher salary - and 14 per cent hoping to increase their value with their own employer by showing them they could get a job somewhere else.

The findings suggest that increasing living costs have led to a ‘reverse retention’ tactics - where employees would consider attempting to get an employer to improve their employment package by threatening to leave. When asked what percentage increase they would expect to receive when negotiating a pay rise, 25 per cent of respondents stated that they would want 9-10 per cent.

Despite 94 per cent thinking that it was not possible for salary packages to keep up with the rising cost of living, 79 per cent felt that their employer has a responsibility to support their employees in managing it.

Ian McVey - Managing Director EMEA at Visier - commented that “an increasingly competitive labour market, ongoing economic uncertainty and the rising cost of living” is more likely to mean that employees will leave a company if their pay rate is not satisfactory.

When asked if they would feel guilty about handing in their notice to improve their pay, 58 per cent of the respondents said they would not - with 45 per cent giving the competitive recruitment market as the reason.

The survey also revealed the concerns of the respondents as 75 per cent were worried about paying their energy bills; 53 per cent with paying their rent or mortgage and 57 per cent paying for food.

In addition to these concerns with the rising cost of living, employees highlighted the financial benefits to working from home - 79 per cent cited saving money on commuting and 47 per cent on buying lunch at work.

Ian McVey stated:

“An increasingly competitive labour market, ongoing economic uncertainty and the rising cost of living are likely to continue to fuel employee’s confidence in threatening to go elsewhere if their workplace package is not up to scratch. To get ahead of this trend – and support employees during these particularly turbulent times - business leaders must find the answer within the people data the business is operating with. For example, keeping abreast of employee sentiment and implementing robust employee experience strategies can create a picture of what it is like to work at a company, and how employees are feeling. Empowering line managers, and HR teams with these insights can help businesses to not only place more emphasis on improving their retention strategy based on what the data is telling us that employees expect, but in supporting employees with the things they need in order to stay at the company.”  

A leading accountancy and tax firm, plus Conservative MP Jake Berry, have called on the Government to increase the mileage rate that employees can claim when using their own cars for business travel.

Mr Berry has urged the Chancellor to increase the mileage by at least 15p as the present level has been in place for a decade.

Hillier Hopkins LLP have stated that 45p per mile for the first 10,000 miles, after which it reduces to 25p per mile - the amounts currently being claimed - has not kept pace with rising cost of living and no longer covers the cost of fuel, let alone insurance and maintenance.

Natasha Heron - Tax Manager at Hillier Hopkins - stated:

“Given the soaring cost of petrol and increased cost of living, people who rely on their car for work are simply and unfairly being left out of pocket.”

She added:

“Previous governments have eroded the tax benefits of company car ownership to such a point that few employers offer company cars as a benefit. Instead, they choose to reimburse staff for the mileage travelled in their personal cars.

The government should as a matter of priority increase the mileage allowance that employees can claim from their employers, and that rate should be reviewed regularly, perhaps every two years. We would recommend that the rate be increased to £0.90 per mile for the next two years.”

Ms Heron pointed out employers could choose to pay employees more than the current 45p rate - but as this is deemed to be a taxable benefit by HMRC she went on to say:

“If, however, the government were to increase the mileage allowance rate, it would be tax neutral from both the employer and the employee. While this would represent an additional cost for businesses, those costs would be deducted against corporation tax.

It would be a simple and quick way to help employees who have to rely on their car for work in a more targeted way than simply reducing fuel duty.”

David Morrison - a Partner in the Dundee office of EQ Accountants and head of EQ taxation - also stated that the 45p per mile is no longer appropriate and added:

“It should be borne in mind that the mileage rate is not just designed to cover fuel. It also includes other running costs, servicing, financing and the depreciation on the car caused by business mileage.

Traditionally, the fuel only component was a low proportion of circa one quarter to one - third of the mileage rate, though that proportion is on the rise.

With used car prices soaring, the depreciation element might offset some of the fuel cost rise. Nevertheless, it’s clear that the 45p per mile mileage rate is no longer appropriate.”

He added that without a significant rise, employees will increasingly feel out of pocket - saying:

“An up-dated mileage rate model is required to ensure that it accurately reflects the dynamic market.”

An analysis of court records by Menopause Experts Group in its annual The Trial of Menopause Report, shows that employment tribunals involving menopause have increased by 44 per cent year on year.

The word ‘menopause’ was mentioned 207 times in tribunal documents in 2021, an increase of 75 per cent from the 118 mentions in 2020.

Of the twenty-three tribunals held last year, sixteen cited disability discrimination, ten claimed sex discrimination and fourteen accused their employer of unfair dismissal.

Dee Murray - CEO of Menopause Experts Group - warns that this must change not only to protect women but also to prevent legal action that can be costly, both financially and in terms of reputation.

Ms Murray commented that two-fifths of menopause employment tribunals were resolved within a month of the hearing, but three cases took more than two years. She called on employers to offer their employees training about the symptoms, signs, and side effects of menopause - stating:

“Employers are starting to get the message about menopause in the workplace, but the growing number of employment tribunals in this area show that there’s still a lot of work to be done.

What’s frustrating is the fact that there are so many training courses available to employers. Teaching our colleagues about menopause is vital if we are going to remove the stigma surrounding what is a big part of a woman's life.” 

Adam Pavey - Employment Lawyer and Non-Executive Director at Menopause Experts Group - stated he was hopeful that the results of an inquiry into menopause and the workplace - conducted by the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee - could lead to some “concrete recommendations that will improve the situation.”

He added:

“Making menopause a protected characteristic is one option, but it is difficult to enforce and monitor, so the committee could push for a requirement that all employers have a menopause policy or a code of conduct and increase penalties for firms that do not comply.

Menopause tribunals are still divided between sex discrimination and disability discrimination cases, and the committee’s recommendation could help remove some of the confusion.”

The research follows the Menopause and the Workplace report by the Fawcett Society and Channel 4, polled 4,000 women aged 45-55 years of age and found that 10 per cent had left their job because of symptoms of the menopause.

The poll also found 14 per cent of women in this age group had reduced their hours and 8 per cent had not applied for a promotion because of symptoms.

The poll also found that 44 per cent of women said their ability to work had been affected due to the menopause and included 18 per cent who reported that their symptoms were currently affecting them - with 26 per cent stating that they had been affected in the past.

Janet Lindsay - CEO of Wellbeing of Women - said the report showed that thousands of women were passing up promotions, reducing their hours or giving up their jobs because of the menopause and commented,

“Women over the age of 50 are the fastest growing demographic in the workplace and more support should be offered to ensure they remain in work because women around this age are usually at their most productive and experienced during this life stage.” 

Recent research on 1,006 UK based workers - by HR software provider CIPHR - has emphasised the effect that the cost-of-living crisis is having on worker’s home and work life. Many are having to change jobs, work extra hours and report for work when sick.

Of the workers polled, 31 per cent stated that they were working more hours and 12 per cent have taken on an additional job; 26 per cent of men and 18 per cent of women have requested a pay rise and a further 16 per cent of men and 10 per cent of women have asked for an expansion of their benefits package.

Respondents to the poll who have found alternative employment with higher wages numbered 12 per cent with 27 per cent considering doing the same - giving cost-of-living as the reason.

Legal personnel - 38 per cent - are one of the professions most likely to change jobs for more money, followed by those working in finance and IT, both at 32 per cent.

Corresponding with recent findings from the Office for National Statistics’ latest opinions and lifestyle survey - where 77 per cent of people felt very, or somewhat, worried about the rising cost-of-living - CIPHR’s research shows that 68 per cent admit to feeling stressed at times because of it. Women are more likely than men to say they feel this way - 74 per cent compared to 61 per cent.

Age group 18 to 34 years old reported more feelings of stress and of being overwhelmed by the cost-of-living rise at 76 per cent compared to 57 per cent of those over 45 years of age.

Of those making changes to their expenditure, 70 per cent of workers with children and 64 per cent of workers with no children have made changes because of rising living costs, including 21 per cent asking for remote working to save commuting costs and 18 per cent asking employers for help and advice or wellbeing support.

Of those workers earning under £30,000, 56 per cent say that they have attended work despite being unwell, because they did not want to take off time and lose money - compared to 37 per cent earning over £45,000. Those without contractual sick pay must be off sick for three days before becoming eligible for payment to be made.

Claire Williams - Chief People Officer at CIPHR - commented:

“Lower earners and part-time earners – who are often predominantly female – are particularly at a disadvantage under the current SSP system. Compounded by the pressures of rising living costs, it’s inadvertently created a situation where more and more employees are forced to work when they may not be well enough to do so, due to the financial impact of taking time off.

Money and financial struggles can be a huge stressor, and can, in turn, have an impact on an individual’s mental health and their ability to perform in their roles.

While there are many things outside of an employer’s control, organisations have a responsibility to support employees’ mental wellbeing in the same way they would when looking after their physical health and safety. There are several ways that this can be achieved. Firstly, check whether any of your existing employee benefits have financial wellbeing support included, as this is usually an area of support offered by employee assistance programmes (EAPs).

Also consider introducing other benefits that can help your employees right now, such as access to discounted shopping sites, health cashback plans, or loan schemes covering travel or new technology purchases.

It’s also important to focus on raising awareness about how much financial wellbeing matters to the wider employee experience. Cost of living increases are impacting everyone – but not everyone equally. Running financial education sessions and sharing useful financial information and resources can help mitigate some of the effects. Managers also need to be mindful that everyone’s situation is different, and managers themselves may need extra training so that they can effectively support their teams on a day-to-day basis.

These are incredibly challenging times, and employers can’t ignore the financial pressures affecting many in their workforce.”

In the case of Mr T Burke v Turning Point Scotland, a Scottish Employment Tribunal - heard by Employment Judge J D Young - ruled that an individual suffering from long Covid was disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 and could bring a disability discrimination claim against his former employer. This makes Mr Burke one of the first people to successfully claim that their symptoms of long Covid amounted to a disability.

Mr Burke was employed as a caretaker for Turning Point Scotland from April 2001 to August 2021. In November 2020, both Mr Burke and his wife contracted Covid-19 resulting in him being unable to work for nine months as he suffered substantial and long-term side effects.

Despite his initial Covid symptoms being very mild and flu-like, after the isolation period he developed severe headaches and symptoms of fatigue. His symptoms included needing to lie down and rest as he was exhausted after showering and dressing; being unable to perform household chores; having joint pain in his legs, arms and shoulders and having a disturbed sleep pattern.

Mr Burke had several telephone consultations with his GP and was diagnosed with post-viral symptom. Between the nine months he was off sick and when he was dismissed, he also had a telephone consultation with occupational health, who reported that Mr Burke was medically fit to return to work. The report also stated that it was unlikely that the Equality Act would apply in his circumstances.

Mr Burke’s payment of sick pay from his employer ceased around June 2021, when there was a follow-up consultation - and he was dismissed on 13 August 2021 on grounds of ill-health. His dismissal letter stated:

“…having reviewed the capability report including occupational health opinion closely, and taken the details of our discussion into consideration, it is my view that you remain too ill to return to work and there appears to be nothing further we can do to adjust your duties or work environment that would make your return more likely. In addition, there does not appear to be a potential date on which there is a likelihood of you being able to return to full duties in the future.”

The tribunal was told that, as a charitable organisation, his employers were not able to hold the post open and so given the uncertainty around a potential return to work date, Mr Burke was dismissed on the grounds of ill health.

Judge Young ruled that Mr Burke’s condition had a long-term substantial adverse effect, meaning that it was likely to last for a period of 12 months and that his impairment had an adverse effect on his day-to-day activities.

He said:

“I consider that the relevant tests are met to meet the definition of disability, and that Mr Burke was a disabled person in the period of the alleged discriminatory acts.”

The case will now go to a hearing in respect of the claims of discrimination arising because of disability.

James Potts - Legal Services Director at Peninsula - commented on the case, saying that the judgment was the first of what could be many rulings on the issue.

He said:

“The expectation is that more cases will make their way through the tribunal system, and so employers are advised to treat each one individually and be prepared to consider reasonable adjustment, even where medical evidence is inconclusive on the disability question.”

He added that this decision was not binding on other courts and if this decision is challenged a higher may reach a different conclusion - saying:

“Each case will turn on its own facts.”

This was echoed by Catherine Turner - Employment Partner at law firm Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner - who said that the ruling should make employers think about how they deal with long Covid cases.

She stated:

“Medical evidence is key in disability claims and the onus is on the individual bringing the claim to prove disability. While the rules are not different for long Covid, what is apparent is that there was not as much medical evidence in this case to support the ex-employee’s case as one would have expected. While credibility of the claimant was - and is always - key, the fact that there were severe restrictions with GPs holding face to face meetings for part of the relevant period played a part in the tribunal’s decision to accept the minimal medical evidence that was presented.”

Ms Turner went on to say that the case is not a blanket ruling for all long Covid disputes, adding:

"The decision does not mean that all those with long Covid will be disabled for employment law purposes. Each case will continue to be decided on its own facts and the legal test and the questions that the tribunal needs to answer remain the same. This is a tribunal decision only which means that it does not need to be followed by tribunals in later cases."

According to new data from the Office of National Statistics (ONS), 9.8 million people are working at part time or temporary jobs. This is the highest number recorded since the start of the pandemic.

Research undertaken by Indeed Flex has shown that people have a preference for part time work, rather than permanent roles - with the number of workers who signed up to the Indeed Flex platform to find part time work in May 2022 up by 178.5 per cent from the same time last year.

It has been stated that these figures have been brought about by many temps desiring to work flexible days and hours, plus the rising cost of living may be encouraging workers to take on temporary work to supplement their income - as those with second jobs had increased by 5.8 per cent in March 2022 compared with the March 2021.

Novo Constare - Co-Founder and COO of Indeed Flex - suggested that the flexibility of part time work may make it more appealing - and speaking to HR magazine he said:

“Temporary work appeals to a wide range of people for a lot of reasons. It can pay well compared to a comparable permanent job, which makes it especially appealing in the current climate. Temps typically find they can get shifts that fit in with their schedule, and this allows them to work where and when they want. The current shortage of workers in industries that rely heavily on temps – such as logistics and hospitality – means flexible staff are more in demand than ever, and they are a lifeline for businesses unable to find enough staff to fill their vacant roles.”

ONS data states that job vacancies reached 1.3 million in June and companies are struggling to fill roles.

A survey of 1,000 workers on lower incomes has shown that 23 per cent were looking for temporary work, with another 40 per cent stating that they may do so within the next year.

A further survey of workers - between the ages of 18-24 - and of above average levels of education, found that 29 per cent were looking for temporary work and 37 per cent may do so within the next year.

Novo Constare remarked that the high popularity of part-time and temporary work was piling extra pressure on employers.

He added:

“Perhaps most striking of all is that for a significant majority of part-time workers, it’s a lifestyle choice. Seven out of ten part-timers do so because they want to, not because they are unable to find a full-time job.

Meanwhile, as the cost-of-living crisis bites deeper, temping is increasingly appealing to those who already have a job but want to top up their income by taking on extra shifts elsewhere.

At the same time, temporary workers are proving a lifeline for the many businesses unable to find enough staff to fill their vacant roles. For them, temps offer an efficient way to cover staff absences and fill shifts at short notice.”

A House of Commons Commission Data Manager was found to have been discriminated against and will be awarded compensation by an employment tribunal, after being disciplined for asking colleagues not to use her workstation as a hot desk while she was absent.

Ms Baker had worked for the House of Commons Commission - which manages the parliamentary estate - since 1991. In 2005  she began experiencing musculoskeletal symptoms and was provided with a modified workstation including an orthopaedic chair, a specialist keyboard and mouse and a reading/writing slope to help her manage neck and back problems.

In June 2018, Ms Baker fell and injured her knee and was signed off on sick leave until 20th  August 2018. However, when she returned to the office, she noticed that all her equipment had been “drastically” altered.

In response, she emailed bosses and was informed that as there were not enough desks to accommodate all employees, “The desk you sit at will have been used by people hot-desking.” On raising the matter with her manager she was told that reserving her desk for an extended period while she was away was not practicable.

Ms Baker said she disputed the need for a hot-desking policy as there were other rooms available for staff to work in and she told the tribunal she found it difficult to adjust her equipment to again make them suitable for her needs.

An occupational health report in September 2018 expressed that Ms Baker’s desk should not be used as a hot desk, stating that she “needs to have her own dedicated workstation” and adding “Adjusting the chair is quite challenging currently given the shoulder injury and restricted movement.”

Later that month, Ms Baker took a day off from the office for a medical appointment, leaving a “polite” note to colleagues asking them not to use her equipment in her absence. Nonetheless, she returned to find her orthopaedic chair had been altered once again. 

At this point, her bosses invited her to a disciplinary hearing to discuss what they saw as an “unreasonable” request, by her leaving the note.

The tribunal was informed that although this allegation was not pursued, Ms Baker had been distressed by it and went on sick leave in October, citing workplace stress. She brought her tribunal claims in January 2019.

At the tribunal, Employment Judge Jillian Brown ruled that Ms Baker had been treated unfavourably by bosses taking disciplinary action against her for leaving the note.

She stated:

“The tribunal decided that the respondent had a practice of allowing hot desking on all desks. It accepted that the claimant would have been put at a substantial disadvantage by this practice, in that her workstation and equipment had been adapted for her needs, to prevent injury and discomfort, and other employees altered her equipment so that it was no longer safe for her to use. This exposed her to risk of injury. This was a more than minor disadvantage.”

Ms Baker also made other allegations of sex and disability discrimination and victimisation, which were dismissed.

A further hearing to decide upon compensation will be held in due course.

New research has been published by Business in the Community (BITC), which has shown that only 45 per cent of employees feel that they can switch off from work, with the other 55 per cent stating they feel pressured to respond to calls or check emails after working hours.

The survey, which was conducted by YouGov for BITC, was carried out over 4,225 workers and found that - over the last two years - 41 per cent have had to work overtime and have found it difficult to take annual leave because of their workload. This compared to 35 per cent in 2020.

Findings also show that 54 per cent of employees said that they had too many priorities; only 29 per cent have the flexibility to alter the start and finish times of their working day and 56 per cent of workers on temporary and zero hours contracts are less likely to be able to take their annual leave, compared to 79 per cent of employees on fixed and permanent contracts.

Of the survey respondents who worked from home, 49 per cent said they felt they could switch off from work. This compared to 45 per cent of employees who travel to and from work each day.

The report makes six recommendations for employers to support employees’ wellbeing and promote a healthy work-life balance.

These include ensuring that employees can switch off outside of their agreed working hours; giving employees the right to request flexible working from their first day of work and balancing business and employee needs by providing flexibility in how, where, and when people work.

Louise Aston - Wellbeing Director at Business in the Community - said:

“It’s clear from these findings that the mental health trends for employees who are unable to switch off from work are going in the wrong direction. Employees, at the very minimum, should not be constantly working additional hours, struggling to take annual leave or feel like they have to always be available to answer emails at all hours of the day. Boundaries must be set to ensure that employers are able to switch off outside of their core working hours and it’s up to senior leaders to ensure that those boundaries are in place. Businesses need their teams to be their absolute best at work, and employees must have the flexibility to do their jobs that balance with their lives outside of the workplace. Our research found that 65 per cent of employees say that work-life balance is extremely important to them, so employers either need to offer that flexibility or else risk losing talented people to organisations that do.”

In the case of Ms C C McKenzie v University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, a Leicester tribunal has found that Ms McKenzie was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against.

The hearing took place before Employment Judge Ahmed.

Ms McKenzie commenced employment with the Trust in 2010 and in 2015 was promoted to Deputy Sister. The tribunal was told that since starting her employment she had been absent for almost 300 days, mainly due to migraines.

Around the same time - 2010 - Ms McKenzie began caring for her grandmother, who suffered from dementia. This affected her own health, resulting in stress and anxiety, causing the migraines to increase in their frequency. A later occupational health report in 2017 confirmed that providing care for her grandmother was the main cause of stress suffered by Ms McKenzie and was likely to be contributing to the increased frequency in the migraines that she already suffered from.

In November 2013 and September 2014 Ms McKenzie received written warnings for having had more absences of sickness than her target allowed. Fresh absence targets for attendance were set and were met in 2015.

However, in 2017 Ms McKenzie received another written warning after breaking her absence targets again - and in 2018, Ms McKenzie went on long-term sickness absence until early in 2019, which resulted in her receiving a final written warning.

At a meeting with her employers, further targets were set for her absences and the final warning was to stay on McKenzie’s file for 24 months. She was prescribed anti-depressants which she later - without medical advice - decided to discontinue taking. She then went on long-term sick leave from December 2019 to March 2020 for anxiety and depression. A report from occupational health then recommended Ms McKenzie should return to work for three months, followed by a redeployment if this was unsuccessful. The tribunal noted this was not acted upon by her employers.

Ms McKenzie was then absent again for sinusitis - although she thought that she had contracted Covid - meaning that her absence should not have counted towards her targets - and a later antibody test showed she did have antibodies for the virus.

Ms McKenzie told the tribunal that she believed the type of PPE that she was wearing affected the frequency of her headaches and having to wear a mask continuously throughout her 12-hour shift left her with inadequate opportunities to hydrate - which also affected her migraines.

In May 2020, Ms McKenzie attended a sickness absence hearing in which she was dismissed. In the dismissal letter it was written,

“Having considered all the information presented, I concluded that your sickness absence levels continue to be unacceptable and are impacting the ward and your team causing, difficulties for your area.

I therefore advised you that the Trust was left with no alternative but to serve you notice to terminate your employment on the grounds of ill-health capability.”

Judge Ahmed said the letter showed that “the dismissal was, if not wholly then at least partly, due to the claimant not achieving attendance targets and/or because of her sickness record. We are therefore satisfied that the reason for her dismissal was ‘for something arising’ from her disabilities.”

A hearing to decide compensation will be set for a later date.

Claire Teeney - Chief People Officer at University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust - said:

“We will use the findings of the tribunal to improve our processes and to consider how we can better support our colleagues in the future.”