Next, Ikea, Morrisons and Ocado have all announced that they will reduce sick pay for their unvaccinated staff who must isolate after coming into close contact with someone who has Covid.

Employees who have not been vaccinated will however still receive sick pay if they test positive for the virus.

Unvaccinated staff (who in the UK must self isolate for 10 days, unlike those who have had two doses of vaccine) will now only be eligible for Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) during their isolation period - unless there are mitigating circumstances.

Statutory Sick Pay is currently set at £96.35 a week, compared with weekly pay of more than £400 before tax for an average store worker at Ikea and between £6.55 and £9.21 an hour for store sales consultants and stock assistants at Next.

Next have called the decision an “emotive topic” but explained they had been dealing with a higher level of staff absence as a result of the Omicron variant.

Nevertheless, employment lawyers have concerns that companies who introduce such policies could open themselves up to discrimination claims from staff.

Matt Jenkin, Employment Partner at law firm Moorcrofts said:

“….sick pay entitlement for many employees forms part of their contractual terms……In those cases, simply imposing a change to sick pay exposes employers to unfair or constructive dismissal claims. There is also the added headache of the need to process vaccination status for employees which can lead to personal data protection concerns.”

Trade unions also expressed concerns about the move, with Paddy Lillis, General Secretary for retail trade union USDAW, stating:

“Statutory Sick Pay is simply not enough to survive on and workers earning less than £120 per week aren’t entitled to any statutory pay at all.”

According to research by a leading London employment law firm - GQ Littler - the number of Employment Tribunal decisions relating to flexible working cases reached a record high in the year to end of September 2021. That year saw 193 cases, more than a 50% rise from 127 cases in the previous year and also surpassing the previous high of 160 cases in 2018-2019.

The Employment Tribunal decisions have been in regard to a mixture of remote and office-based working and according to GQ Littler, have more probably than not been as a result of employers requiring staff to return to office based working and not agreeing to flexible working. It is felt that disputes regarding the timing of returning to office based workplaces have arisen because of the uncertainty over COVID WFH guidelines, especially amongst employees suffering from health conditions and those with parenting responsibilities.

Sophie Vanhegan of GQ Littler stated:

“The rise in cases relating to flexible working, suggests this is becoming a battleground within some businesses.”

“We may just be seeing the beginning of a tranche of claims taken against employers who’ve failed to deal with flexible working requests in a ‘reasonable manner’.”

In order to turn down a flexible working request from an eligible employee, employers must consider that one or more of the following eight reasons apply to the working arrangements:

• The additional costs would impose a burden.
• The request would have a detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand.
• An inability to re-organise work among existing staff.
• A inability to recruit additional staff.
• Agreeing to the request will have a detrimental impact on quality.
• Agreeing to the request will have a detrimental impact on performance.
• There is insufficient work during the periods the employee proposes to work.
• There are planned structural changes.

According to GQ Littler the commonly used of these reasons is that flexible working would have a “detrimental impact on performance” or a “detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand”. Sophie Vanhegan however warned that employees may begin to “vote with their feet” should employers use “heavy-handed” approaches to flexible working.

She added that employers who were unsure about agreeing to flexible working requests could consider granting these on a trial basis, which would then show definitively whether the arrangement was workable for the business and the employee.

To deal with the multiple trials and prospects uncovered by the pandemic, leadership will be as important as listening and learning at all levels.

It has been highlighted that for many people, juggling their various personal needs while meeting their work requirements has been tricky, with staying healthy proving to be the biggest challenge – followed by managing stress, maintaining productivity and managing workloads.

Prior to the pandemic, it was found that employees in the UK worked the equivalent of £35 billion in unpaid overtime - with this figure increasing during the pandemic.

Despite the benefits created by workers moving to a more remote working culture - where they are exercising and spending more time with family - they have also found negative effects.

Remote working has clouded the distinction between work and home, making it more difficult for workers to ‘switch off’ in their leisure time.

Isolation is also a problem for some - and claims can arise from employees who believe that they are being asked to work extra hours or feel their employer is not providing a duty of care - which includes taking steps to prevent any stress-related illnesses.

Work related stress - if it results in an employee being diagnosed with a psychiatric injury such as depression or post-traumatic stress disorder - could result in an employee having a claim for personal injury, as long-term exposure to stress can lead to a psychiatric disorder diagnosis.

It has therefore been suggested that mental health training for staff would help them recognise when they might be at risk of illness resulting from working long hours.

Constructive dismissal and potential discrimination claims may arise out of requiring employees to work longer hours - or even an assumption by the employer that the employee will work longer hours could put those with disabilities - and who are protected by discrimination law - at a disadvantage, leading to discrimination claims based on age; pregnancy; religion; disability or gender.

Older workers, pregnant women and those who are the primary carers are unlikely to be able to work longer hours and will suffer if long hours become a normal part of the job - just as there is a risk of religious discrimination if employees are asked to work on days which their religion considers holy.

To allay some of the risks, HR could consider:

• The needs of each employee and make needs-based specific arrangements.
• Encourage staff to come forward if they are feeling unwell.
• Investigate employee complaints or any signs of stress.
• Regular meetings to ensure all the above takes place.
• Encourage employees to take annual leave and breaks.

An active organisational culture that finds ways to reduce stress will play a vital part in making the conditions and atmosphere right for workers to thrive.

Experts predict that salaries for professionals are expected to increase by as much as 25 per cent in the first quarter of this year - as companies fight to hold on to their best staff and new starters see significant growth to their pay packets.

A study carried out for Robert Walters’ 2022 UK Salary Guide - an analysis of more than 100,000 jobs posted over the last twelve months - has found that professional services firms are planning to increase their budgets for pay rises by up to 15 per cent. This is the biggest increase since 2008 - and almost three times the rate of inflation. 

At least 5 per cent of the payroll budgets increase will be set aside for existing employees - however, the biggest pay rises will be reserved for new starters. Rises are expected to be for all levels of workers from entry-level and temporary staff through to management and executives. Of the employees polled, 75 per cent said they were very confident about job opportunities this year and 43 per cent of firms stated that salary increases for existing employees were being planned - to line up with higher pay awarded to new staff.

Chris Poole - Managing Director at Robert Walters UK - stated that a pattern had emerged and commented:

“Wage increases above market value for in-demand hires was a recurring theme of the past year. As a result, we saw new starter salaries outstrip those of existing employees.”

He added that this could alienate existing workers, stating:

“The consequences of this will result in wage compression - where existing employees feel their additional experience at the company - over new starters - is no longer valued or has not grown in value over the past two years. Looking at the year ahead we will see more companies raise the pay of their existing employees to sit in line with new starter salaries.”

More than half - 54 percent - stated that they were expecting a pay rise this year after most places had endured a two-year salary freeze, with two thirds of employees threatening to leave their jobs if they were not rewarded fairly.

According to the 2022 UK Salary Guide, the top three values post-pandemic required by professionals are excellent compensation and benefits - 65 per cent; a desirable bonus scheme - as stated by 53 per cent and job security - 40 per cent. Ranking much lower was flexi hours at 29 per cent; remote working 22 per cent and holiday entitlement 20 per cent. Just over half of white-collar workers said that they would not ask about flexi working in an interview as they assume that it would now be offered. A third of workers stated that inspiring colleagues and company culture is an important factor in staying on or taking on a new role. 

Over a third of businesses reported that they are increasing wage rates in order to keep up with inflation.

Chris Poole stated:

“There is little point in companies offering a pay rise as a morale booster if the impact of that increase isn’t really felt in the real world - and so we are increasingly seeing more companies consider the cost-of-living when determining the average pay rise an individual gets.”

But he added:

“Businesses will have to decide how much to raise their salaries to keep their employees, whilst also deciding how much to pass on those costs to their clients and consumers.”

Global Employment lawyers, GQ Littler have said that the rise in the number of claims relating to flexible working requests was probably determined by employees resisting attempts to bring them back into the office. But in addition, employees with childcare responsibilities and/or health conditions could also be contributing to the rise.

Research by GQ Littler found that, in 2019-2020, the number of claims was 127. The previous highest figure was in 2018-2019 when 150 claims were recorded. However. in the past year there was a 52 per cent increase - bringing the number of claims to a record 193.

Uncertainty over the instructions given by the government with reference to working at home or office, appeared to bring a clash between employers and employees.

Sophie Vanhegan - Partner at GQ Littler - said:

“The rise in cases relating to flexible working suggests this is becoming a battleground within some businesses.

We may just be seeing the beginning of a tranche of claims taken against employers who’ve failed to deal with flexible working requests in a ‘reasonable manner’.”

She went on to suggest that businesses should be open-minded when receiving such requests and added:

“When it comes to bringing employees back into the office, employers should be wary of taking a heavy-handed approach. Many sectors are currently experiencing considerable challenges in hiring and retaining talent. At the same time, more candidates are now asking for flexible arrangements at recruitment stage, so may be put off by would-be employers who aren’t open-minded to these requests. Similarly, if existing employees feel that their requests aren’t properly considered, they may vote with their feet.”

Keely Rushmore - Employment Partner at Keystone Law - said that claims brought to the employment tribunals over flexible working are often brought alongside discrimination claims and stated:

"Whilst some employers may not be too concerned about the financial implications of a failure to comply with this requirement, the risks significantly increase where the employee brings a claim of indirect discrimination as well, challenging whether the employer can justify its reasoning. This is most commonly framed as a sex or disability discrimination claim. Given compensation in discrimination claims is uncapped; getting things wrong can be a costly mistake.”

Legislation was introduced to parliament in June 2021 and is due a second reading in the House of Commons in March. If passed this will give employees the right to work flexibly from their first day of employment.

The government guidelines state that an employee can complain to an employment tribunal if the employer does not manage their request in a reasonable manner; wrongly treats the employee’s application as withdrawn; dismiss or treat an employee purely because of their flexible working request or reject an application based on incorrect facts.

HR professionals have been advised to stay aware of their payroll after a bank mistakenly paid out £130m from business accounts on Christmas Day. In addition, it is urged that staff should be encouraged to check their payslips.

The BBC have reported that Santander made a technical error resulting in approximately 75,000 accounts receiving unexpected payments – including some accounts receiving duplicate salary payments.

Samantha Johnson - Policy Lead at the Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals - said:

“Payroll professionals look to their banking providers to deposit wages to employees, and technical errors such as this can create havoc for payroll teams who will no doubt have received an onslaught of queries from employees who were affected.”

She added:

“In addition to encouraging payroll checks within the department, the Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals also encourages everyone to get into the habit of regularly checking their payslips to identify mistakes like this quickly, before it becomes a bigger problem.”

Claire Williams - Chief People Officer at CIPHR, leading UK HR and recruitment software provider - said that if HR and payroll teams were upskilled, manual payroll errors could be avoided.

She stated:

“Have a clear and defined segregation of duties, with appropriate levels of checks along the way… If you are using a payroll bureau or managed service, make the most of technical integrations to avoid further risks of manual errors”.

She added that, whilst errors made by banks are outside payroll managers’ control, processes should be put in place to minimise the risk.

Whether payroll is a part of finance - or HR, the two departments need to work together.  A recent study showed that senior management often miss the problems facing their teams - front line staff were found to see 100 per cent of the problems; middle managers only 74 per cent; team managers 9 per cent and senior executives just 4 per cent.

The BBC were told by Santander that a scheduling error had caused these mistaken payments.  They stated that the error was quickly rectified but that the recipients would have included employees and corporate suppliers, adding that the mistaken payment was funded by Santander reserves. Other banks - including Barclays, HSBC, NatWest and the Co-operative Bank - were in talks with Santander to solve how to reclaim the money.

Although some of the money had been returned, the worry was that if some of the recipients of the mistaken payments had already spent the money, rival banks would be unlikely to return the lost money if it resulted in their customers going into overdraft.

According to the new Empowering Employee Wellbeing in the New World of Work report from Achievers Workforce Institute - the research and insights arm of Achievers, global leader in employee voice and recognition solutions that builds sustainable performance in organisations - half of employees feel stressed and few are getting the support they need, despite HR beliefs about wellbeing at work.

The research surveyed more than 2,000 employed respondents and 950 HR leaders from Australia, Canada, UK and USA, finding that only 20 per cent of employees say they feel physically and mentally healthy; only 17 per cent feel their physical wellbeing is supported by their employer and only 18 per cent feel their employer supports their mental wellbeing.

Only one in five employees feel a sense of physical and mental wellbeing, with their engagement; belonging; productivity and absenteeism being impacted. Of the HR leaders polled, 47 per cent say that their company supports employee wellbeing, but just 24 per cent of employees agree.

Almost half - 48 per cent of employees - feel stressed and of that group, 63 per cent say their stress is related to the pandemic. 

Employees who feel that their wellbeing is not supported by their employer are twice as likely to say they regularly think about looking for a job elsewhere. However, organisations that are focused on employee wellbeing and can bridge the gap between HR and employees are likely to improve retention.

Dr. Natalie Baumgartner - Achievers Chief Workforce Scientist - said:

“As we look ahead at the weeks and months to come, it’s easy to think that the worst is behind us with vaccinations on the rise and many businesses starting a phased return to the office. However, the wellbeing research from Achievers Workforce Institute shows that stress remains high, with COVID-19 as a key driver. Almost one third of employees surveyed have taken leave due to stress, and this is even higher for marginalised groups. HR leaders need to understand how and why marginalised groups are experiencing heightened stress, otherwise inequities will deepen and result in cultural erosion over time.”

Twice as many HR leaders - 47 per cent against 24 per cent employees - say their organisation supports employee wellbeing, including mental wellbeing and, in addition, 40 per cent of HR leaders feel their company offers employees resources to support their mental wellbeing, but only 18 per cent of the employees feel supported in managing their mental wellbeing. This suggests that either the support is not being communicated, leaving employees unaware of available support - or it is not having the desired impact.

Dr. Baumgartner added:

“Closing the gap between HR action and employee perception should be mission critical for HR and business leaders. While HR may believe they are taking the right steps to support employees in this area, if individuals don’t experience that support as effective, then the effort is not meeting the goal. The key step is to ask employees for their input on both existing initiatives, and with regards to which programmes would be beneficial to their physical and mental wellbeing. This employee insight is crucial to implementing support that is experienced as effective and impactful.”

Despite AI being regarded as disruptive - but maybe not in a bad way - fewer than 25 per cent of businesses report that it has led to job losses.

This is according to new research - based on a survey of over 750 AI-enabled businesses - and published by academics at the University of Warwick and the University of Sussex.

The study is the first survey of its kind in the UK devoted to capturing the introduction of AI and other new technologies in organisations and to be concentrated on jobs.

The report states that less than a quarter of companies believe that AI has led to net job losses since it was introduced - and a similar number stated that AI had created additional jobs. More than 50 per cent of participating companies said that they witnessed no overall change.

When compared to any other technology, AI was found to have a significant effect on job numbers as with the introduction of AI it is said to be 28.4 per cent more likely to be linked to job creation - and 26.6 per cent more likely to be linked to job destruction. 

Dr Wil Hunt - Research Fellow at the University of Sussex Business School - said:

“Discussions about AI’s potential impact on jobs have tended to focus on potential job loses as AI is increasingly capable of automating complex tasks. And while there does seem to be some evidence of that, our research shows that AI is as likely to lead to net job creation in companies introducing AI as it is to lead to net destruction. While we can’t say for sure how many jobs will be created or destroyed from the research, it is likely that the automation of some tasks may mean fewer people are needed to perform some jobs, but that increased productivity may reduce costs stimulating sales and demand for workers overall. This of course is likely to depend upon the specific AI-technology used and what employers hope to achieve by using it. While our study data precedes the impacts of Coronavirus, adoption of these kinds of technology is only likely to accelerate following the start of the pandemic as more and more work moves online.”

Sudipa Sarkar - Senior Research Fellow in the Institute for Employment Research at the University of Warwick - stated:

“Advances in AI have reignited debates about the impact of technology on the future of work, raising concerns about massive job losses. However, current evidence supporting this is beset by methodological limitations and there is very little analysis of what actually happens in organisations introducing AI-enabled technologies. Drawing on a new UK employer survey, our study reveals that organisations introducing AI have higher rates of both job creation and destruction compared to organisations introducing non-AI technology. The findings of our study also suggest a slightly higher association between AI introduction and job creation than job destruction, but the difference, when tested is not statistically significant. This implies that AI is equally likely to be associated with job creation as job destruction compared to other non-AI technology.”

This new study - receiving 759 eligible responses - plainly reveals what is happening within organisations that have specifically adopted AI-enabled technologies and allows employers to give a clearer picture about what is happening within a company.

Professor Chris Warhurst - Director of the Institute for Employment Research at the University of Warwick - said:

“In the absence of a natural experiment and longitudinal data it is impossible to attempt to estimate the causal effect of AI adoption on employment creation or reduction. Instead, our research demonstrates how such a methodology helps understand the extent of AI use within organisations at a given point in time and is a step towards understanding how the introduction of AI-enabled technology can have different implications for organisations compared to other technologies.”

During the coronavirus pandemic, the TUC has warned that the controversial practice of ‘fire and re-hire’ has become widespread. 

An online survey of 2,231 workers in England and Wales was conducted during November 2020 on respondents who were either in work, on furlough, or recently made redundant. 

It was found that 9 per cent of workers have been told to re-apply for their jobs on worse terms and conditions or face the sack and 18 per cent of those aged 18-24 years say that their working terms - such as pay or hours - have been downgraded since the first lockdown in March.  

Twice the proportion of ethnic minority workers were subjected to ‘fire and hire’ tactics,15 per cent compared to 8 per cent of their white counterparts. In addition, 12 per cent of working-class employees - as against 7 per cent of higher socio-economic groups - were told to re-apply for their jobs under worse terms and conditions.  

The TUC says ‘fire and re-hire’ tactics are being used across a range of businesses.  Of the workers polled, a total of 24 per cent had experienced a downgrading of their terms during the pandemic - including through reduced pay or changes to their hours.

The poll also revealed that 34 per cent of young workers - aged 18-24 years - say their terms at work have deteriorated since the start of the first lockdown and 30 per cent of low-paid workers - those earning up to £15,000 - report the same.  Job security was cited as a worry by 38 per cent of workers.

Frances O’Grady - General Secretary of the TUC - said:

“Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect at work. Forcing people to re-apply for their jobs on worse terms and conditions is plain wrong.   Fire and re-hire tactics have no place in modern Britain and must be outlawed.”  

Ben Willmott - Head of Public Policy at the CIPD - stated:

“Employers must consider all alternatives and have done everything possible to try and reach voluntary agreement and consider whether the proposed changes are completely vital.”

He states that dismissing a worker and then rehiring – forcing them to accept a change to the employment contract, should be an absolute last resort.

Francis O’Grady is calling on the government to fast track a much-delayed employment bill and to “…….abandon any attempt to water down hard-won workers’ rights from the EU.”  

Paul Holcroft - Managing Director of Croner - cautioned that “…. depending on how employers are putting their ‘fire and rehire’ processes in place, employees may have an argument that they have been unfairly dismissed, so the details would need to be looked at carefully”.

According to research by software company Sage People recent events have impacted the role of HR, increasing their value in the eyes of the business.

Sage interviewed 1500 global HR leaders, business executives and employees, and found that 87 per cent of C-suite executives say the pandemic has accelerated changes in HR - with 72 per cent of HR leaders believing other peoples’ understanding of their function has increased.  Fifty-nine per cent said that they felt they played a more influential role in the company.

Due to the pressure on companies by the pandemic, business leaders have had to adapt quickly, and HR leaders have been at the forefront of that adaptation and transformation.

However, more than half - 57 per cent - of C-suite executives still saw HR as a largely administrative function, despite the same proportion viewing them as equal leadership partners in the organisation.

Regarding HR workload, 76 per cent of senior executives felt the amount of work placed on HR departments was acceptable, even though 60 per cent of HR professionals have experienced an increase in administrative and strategic tasks.

Sage found that six in ten employees thought that HR’s role had become more strategic and people focused, with 25 per cent saying this change had been substantial - and 54 per cent of employees also saying they now have improved knowledge and understanding of HR’s role and value.

The research revealed that the pandemic has heightened the focus on technology and digital transformation - but there is a lack of confidence amongst HR leaders about skills.  Thirty-six per cent of HR leaders feel there is a lack of investment to make this a reality and only 53 per cent believe they have the right skills and tools for what lies ahead.

Paul Burrin - Vice President of Product, Sage People - said:

“HR has taken on more responsibilities and helped guide the business through ongoing disruption and accelerated digital transformation. However, this has often created additional workloads which automation can help manage, increasing HR productivity, while enabling organisations to become more agile and resilient.

2020 marked a year where HR’s leaders became champions of change and both executives and employees alike have realised the greater role that HR has taken on. HR and People leaders can capitalise on this and use this opportunity to cast aside older, more cumbersome ways of working to focus instead on quicker, iterative cycles of work. In this way—with the help of automation, cloud technology, and self-service—HR can focus on maintaining influence and building a more resilient workforce that is more prepared for future challenges ahead.”

According to research carried out by leading law firm GQ Littler, the number of claims received by employment tribunals increased by 27 per cent over the last year – more than 6,000 greater than in the previous 12 months.  This indicates a considerably faster increase than that which occurred during 2017-18 and 2018-19.

This spike in claims has been put down to the broad range of employment law risks caused by the pandemic – and the bad effect that has had on the economy.

Philip Cameron - a Partner at GQ Littler - said:

“It is unrealistic to expect that you can go through such a huge change in working practices and a severe economic downturn without creating a sharp rise in disputes between employees and employers. The pandemic has created HR challenges for employers that they have never faced before. While employers have often met this huge logistical challenge well, it is not without a cost.”

Jonna Mundy - CEO of You HR - agrees.  She states that the amount of tribunal claims was ‘an inevitable aftermath from the first catastrophic Covid hit last year’, with the full impact yet to be felt. 

She commented, “We are yet to see the fallout of further redundancies likely to come from spring onwards of this year.”  She added that “poor practice in not managing health, wellbeing and other employee concerns would likely amount to further claims”.

When employment law experts were asked for advice on how firms can keep themselves out of the virtual courtroom, Jo Caine - Managing Director of Cathedral Appointments - suggested that employers should engage with HR and legal specialists.

She said:

“In this day and age, word spreads fast. If your company treats employees unfairly or in an inappropriate manner, especially during a time of crisis such as this, there will be consequences. Employees will talk, bad reviews will be made on platforms such as Glassdoor, and your business will suffer in the long term.”

In addition to the pressure felt by employers, the courts are suffering from a growing backlog of cases. Waiting time for single claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination is averaging out at 38 weeks.  GQ Littler states that this is something that is exacerbating problems for employers and employees who then face periods of uncertainty.

Philip Cameron stated:

“For both employers and employees these long waits before tribunals can be demoralising. For management they are a huge distraction and for employees the lengthy wait period can be very stressful and they will have no source of income.”

Issues about the Government’s furlough scheme; the handling of the redundancy process; health and safety concerns and the increase in flexible working are all common traps that employers fall into which could lead to employment tribunals.

The selection of employees to be furloughed may come under scrutiny in 2021 and choosing which employees to furlough should be as fair and objective as possible.

With quick and large-scale redundancies having to be made, employers need to follow a fair selection process – a collective consultation process for 20 or more employees from a single location over a period of 90 days or less. Failure to do this can result in an award of up to 90 days’ pay for each affected employee.

In addition to ensuring that the workplace is safe to work in - to reduce the spread of infection, employers also need to ensure that risks to pregnant employees are assessed regularly. Reasonable adjustments should also be made for disabled workers and employees should be protected against detriment or dismissal where they reasonably believe themselves to be in serious and imminent danger such as - during the COVID-19 pandemic - contracting the potentially deadly virus. 

In 2021, employment tribunals could face difficult questions regarding whether an employee’s long COVID symptoms meet the definition of a disability under the Equality Act.

Meetings should continue online as employment tribunals are still functioning throughout the latest restrictions and Kathleen Heycock - Partner at Farrer & Co – says:

“In our experience, even difficult and complex investigations can take place remotely………there is unlikely to be much sympathy for employers – or employees – who now try to use this third lockdown as a reason to delay or frustrate HR processes.”

She added:

“Perfection is a tough goal, even in normal circumstances. No matter how well any process is run, it is not possible to eliminate all claims for disgruntled or distressed employees. And there are far more of those during these difficult times. It is inevitable that claims increase when employees can’t simply move on to a new job and a decent salary. Sadly, there are just more people who feel litigation is worth it, because they don’t have another option.”

An assistant solicitor - Ms Susan Orton - who missed a hearing at an Employment Tribunal, has not been struck off from practising law.

Ms Orton qualified in March 2016.   In August 2018 - as a solicitor employed by BPE Solicitors, a Cheltenham firm - she received a telephone call from an Employment Tribunal asking why there had not been an attendance at the Tribunal for one of her cases. 

As a result of this call, Ms Orton looked for- and found - a notification of hearing document, two copies of which she put into waste bins in the office. She denied having seen them to her employers.

However, after being seen to do this by a secretary who reported the matter, the copy notifications were later found in the bins by her supervisor and the head of HR.

Ms Orton was dismissed the following day.

At the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, she was cleared of dishonesty over this act - but it was found that she committed a dishonest act in misleading the Employment Tribunal when she denied having seen notification of the hearing.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal stated that they could not be sure that Ms Orton - who had subsequently been diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum - was aware of what she was doing at the time.

The QC representing Ms Orton stated that she had a fear of making mistakes and put forward that this was an ‘aberration’ in her otherwise unblemished career.

He stated:

“The nature of this dishonesty was a rabbit in the headlights by a lady suffering a serious illness that she had no idea she was suffering from. She is a very positive member of society and a lady of high intelligence with a great deal to offer. She can have some kind of future in the law and in the right environment does not present a risk.”

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal made the unusual decision not to strike off Ms Orton and found that exceptional circumstances had added to her conduct. She was suspended for six months, with the Tribunal stating that she would have received a two and a half years suspension apart from the fact that her time out of work since the incident has accounted for two years.

When she returns to work, she will be subject to several conditions on her practising certificate and will be required to undergo regular health checks.

Ms Orton was also ordered to pay £20,000 costs.

The Junior Lawyers Division (JLD) has welcomed the decision not to strike Ms Orton after the Tribunal found that her mental ill-health represented exceptional circumstances which warranted a suspension instead.

The JLD group commented:

“The JLD hopes the SDT (Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal) continues to be as conscious of the significant impact of such issues in future determinations, and that the SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority) takes note of the Orton outcome when considering whether to prosecute other junior lawyers in similar circumstances in the future.”

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has stressed that HR must take steps to make the workforce more inclusive, with different generations working side-by-side.

A new report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, states that governments and employers should collaborate to promote multi-generational labour forces to adapt to ongoing changes - accelerated by the coronavirus pandemic - in the world of work.    

The new report stated that by 2050 more than four in every ten people in the world’s advanced economies are likely to be aged older than 50 years of age. In addition, there will be one person aged 65 and over for every two persons aged 20-64 - compared to one for every three today.

According to the research undertaken in 37 countries, the report found that older workers can augment the productivity in their company through age and skill complementarities between younger and older workers - and their own experience.

There is a problem, however, as the research suggests that HR and leaders tend to classify workers by their age and then create policies based on this. The OECD suggests this may achieve the opposite from that which is required, as workers of all ages are more alike in their attitudes to work - and they are inclined to value similar things.

The OECD suggests that recruitment and retention strategies should be focussed upon - together with improving job quality and maximising training and development - in order to promote an age-inclusive workforce, with job advertisements being age-proofed in order to attract talent from all age groups.

Additionally, phased retirement programmes could be an effective method to retain older workers, allowing them to work for their employers in a different capacity rather than immediately transitioning to full-time retirement.

Currently, only 41 per cent of adults across the OECD take part in job-related training, with younger; more highly qualified employees on full-time contracts more likely to receive training than older, lower skilled and part-time workers.

Stefano Scarpetta - Director of Employment, Labour and Social Affairs at the OECD - said:

“Many employers are struggling to establish effective policies that continue to support workers’ living, learning and earning at older ages. Part of this inaction is fuelled by widespread misconceptions about the strengths and capabilities that different generations bring to the workplace.

Workplace policies and practises cannot be implemented in isolation for specific groups at specific times in their careers – it is not about targeting one age group at the perceived expense of another. Employers will only succeed if they develop initiatives in the context of nurturing an age-diverse workplace and taking a life-cycle perspective with supportive public policies and good social dialogue. Doing so will benefit all of us as well as future generations in terms of greater prosperity and well-being.”

New research carried out by the Achievers Workforce Institute on 2,094 employed respondents, has found that just 48 per cent of managers have received training on coaching, professional development and recognition.

In addition, the report draws attention to the link between engaged employees and effective managers - underlining the necessary training HR must provide to managers.

According to the data, whilst 48 per cent have said to have been trained in key areas - such as one-to-one meetings; coaching; employee recognition or professional development, only 27 per cent were trained on setting performance goals.  Approximately, a third of managers were trained in each of the areas - leaving most managers to pick up best practices on their own.

Achievers Chief Workforce Scientist - Dr. Natalie Baumgartner - said:

“With less than half of employers training managers to coach and lead their teams, according to the survey, it represents a risk area for organisations. Our data shows that manager effectiveness directly impacts employee engagement, with recognition and professional development playing especially big roles in driving effectiveness. Organisations need to offer widespread training to all managers to empower them to better lead their teams. If an organisation can empower all their managers to be great leaders, they will see direct business impact at every level.”

To assist managers, Achievers have advised HR teams to train managers in employee recognition; professional development; strength-based management and empathetic leadership. They should create a culture of recognition throughout the business – with managers recognising employees’ strengths.  Professional development plans for individuals at all levels are recommended to be put in place.

Dr. Natalie Baumgartner added:

“Organisational leaders simply cannot expect managers to effectively support and engage their people without providing them with the tools, resources, and training to do so. Good managers become so through insight, development and support — essentially, empowerment. Conversely, bad managers are often actually just under-supported, under-developed, and under-engaged, themselves. Thus, it’s imperative that every organisation empowers their front-line people leaders, their managers, with regular, consistent, cross-functional training for all managers.”

Towards the end of 2019, online research - based on 2,016 UK flexible workers - was conducted by Censuswide, on behalf of 99&One. The survey sample included 558 decision makers who work in IT, Finance and accounts or HR.

The research showed that 66 per cent of workers believe that they are more productive when they work flexibly, but many are being held back because they cannot make the best or most effective use of their technology.

99&One’s research revealed that companies are still not getting some basic technology configurations right, with 17 per cent of employees still experiencing connectivity issues when working remotely.

The survey disclosed that part of the problem is that workers have been overloaded with technology they have not yet been able to fully adopt or master - such as 67 per cent who state instant messaging; 61 per cent shared documents; 48 per cent cloud-based collaboration tools; 40 per cent video conferencing and 36 per cent audio conferencing.

It was also revealed that just 43 per cent of employees have received additional training or support on technologies to enable them to work more flexibly.

Employees who have received sufficient training on flexible working technologies were found to be 56 per cent happier at work than the 11 per cent who are not offered any support. Trained workers are also more than twice as likely - 45 per cent as opposed to 18 per cent - to say that they get more work done in the same amount of time when working flexibly.   

Steve Haworth - CEO of the TeleWare Group - stated:

“Digital transformation is the key to encouraging productivity, engagement and collaboration. However, many companies have still not got to grips with their IT investment. Just 1% of UK businesses have productivity above 1%. Optimised technology could improve productivity, profitability and employee engagement.”  

He added:

“Setting employees up with the right tools to carry out their role is not enough. They need to feel confident using them. Companies should be prepared to deliver and embed technology change in a people-first way, helping everyone in the organisation to fully embrace change.”

Business leaders have been warned that the UK’s lacklustre productivity performance is continuing, after new figures showed minimal growth.

The latest productivity figures published by the Office for National Statistics show that output per hour rose only 0.1 per cent in the third quarter of last year - compared to the same period in 2018 and because earnings growth is outstripping output, the cost of labour has risen by 3.6 per cent - leading to calls for employers to invest in skills and technology.

Gerwyn Davies - senior labour market adviser at the CIPD, the professional body for HR and people development - said:

“These latest figures offer further evidence that stronger earnings growth isn’t encouraging employers to invest in higher levels of productivity. Political uncertainty may have cast a shadow over some UK businesses’ confidence levels and held them back from investing over the recent past.  However, with some of that uncertainty now removed, employers should be looking to improve output through greater investment in skills and technology, and not through intensifying work.”

He added:

“The introduction of new migration restrictions - alongside another generous up-rating in the national living wage later this year - is a compelling reason for employers to make this a priority. A failure to do this may result in job cuts in some cases. And, while the government’s commitment to increasing investment in infrastructure is welcome, more business support is needed for small firms to help them make the right investment, particularly in how they manage and develop their staff.”

Matt Weston - Managing Director of recruitment firm Robert Half UK - commenting on the figures issued by the Office for National Statistics, said:

“Employers can expect to be at the receiving end of promotion and pay rise requests while top professionals will be fielding multiple job offers. In order to win the war for talent, employers will need to consider a flexible hiring strategy, looking at both permanent and temporary staff to bring a range of skills and experience to the team and help tackle any productivity challenges.

The onus is also on employers to provide a competitive remuneration package that is attractive to staff. That said employees are also receptive to other benefits such as flexible working, health and wellbeing perks and training opportunities, all of which should be considered as part of any offer to retain or attract a talented team.”

Katherine Kent - Head of Productivity at the Office for National Statistics - commented:

“Although productivity grew on the year, the underlying picture is of sustained weakness since 2008, with growth over the past year being only a third of the average over the last 10 years or so. The significance of this continued weakness has now been recognised by the Royal Statistical Society, which named this poor productivity performance as its ‘UK Statistic of the Decade’.”

Tej Parikh - Chief Economist at the Institute of Directors - stated:

“The UK’s lacklustre productivity performance goes on, laying bare the challenge facing the new Government. A long period of uncertainty has sapped business leaders’ confidence to invest in the equipment and technology they need to drive productivity growth. Meanwhile, talent shortages and bottlenecks in our infrastructure have constrained our ability to catalyse economic activity. The UK’s decade-long struggle to raise its productivity game has in turn restrained wage growth.

A 55-year-old Managing Director for energy banking - Niels Kirk - was found to have been unfairly dismissed by the global bank Citigroup in November 2017 after he had allegedly been told by his boss, “You are old and set in your ways.” He had been employed by Citigroup since June 1991.

Mr Kirk made his claim in February 2018.

His boss - who is global co-head of banking - denied telling Mr Kirk that he was old and set in his ways. However, the judge – John Goodrich – found that Mr Kirk’s boss’s evidence was less convincing than Mr Kirk’s, who took notes during the meeting.

Mr Kirk stated that he had not been given any notice of the proposed restructuring and the fact that he was likely to be made redundant but a senior banker at Citigroup assessed Mr Kirk at the end of 2015 and told him:

“The team is stronger, with the time coming to provide the next level of bankers with more opportunities to demonstrate the quality and depth of their customer relationships and deal management capabilities.”

In the ruling made by Judge Goodrich, it stated that Citigroup did not accept that the comment meant that Mr Kirk should make way for younger staff members - but it simply expressed the need for the senior manager to develop and improve the skills of team members.

When Mr Kirk’s record at the firm was scrutinised in detail, it was found that generally he had very good ratings and feedback, but with some decline over the past few years.

A witness - co-head of corporate banking EMEA - said there were concerns about Mr Kirk’s partnership skills, based on the feedback received in the performance review processes for 2015 and 2016 and a senior banker who managed Mr Kirk gave evidence stating that he carried out a “stress-testing exercise” by comparing Mr Kirk’s skills with those of Ms Marie-Christine Olive, who had been lined up as the preferred candidate for Mr Kirk’s replacement.

The tribunal heard that Mr Kirk contended that this was not meaningful, because the decision to replace him had already been reached.

The tribunal was sceptical about explanations given for the replacement of Mr Kirk with the slightly younger Ms Olive. It found that before Mr Kirk was notified on 25 September 2017of the proposed restructure, Ms Olive had already been informed that she was their preferred candidate for the position and asked to confirm that she wanted the role.

The tribunal also noted that HR had not kept full records of meetings between Mr Kirk and the above bankers, although the court heard that it was normal for HR to keep these records.

Mr Kirk asserted that the decision to pass him over was based on his age rather than his skills and the tribunal agreed, ruling that Citigroup was guilty of age discrimination when it dismissed him.

Neils Kirk stated:

“I still feel extremely sad about the way my 26-year career at Citibank ended.”

A survey has found that more than half of UK workers are considering finding a new job within the year and according to recent reports collected by Instant Offices, most Brits are likely to hand in their resignation letters on 31st January - with a number calling in sick on the first Monday in February to attend interviews.

The survey - commissioned by accreditation body Investors in People – found that 24 per cent of respondents had already started actively job hunting. A further 32 per cent were considering changing their jobs, but had not yet started looking. The total number of respondents either searching or thinking about searching has increased by 8 per cent compared to 2019.

Investors in People have warned about increased levels of disillusionment in the workplace, stating that employers faced a ‘new year recruitment crisis’.

Nearly a quarter of workers - 23 per cent - were unhappy with their current job and 65 per cent dreaded going back to work after the weekend. Dissatisfaction with pay levels was expressed by 28 per cent of respondents, with 29 per cent of those considering changing roles stating that they believed that they could earn more money elsewhere. Not feeling valued was felt by 23 per cent - whilst 18 per cent of respondents cited lack of career progression.

Paul Devoy - CEO of Investors in People - said:

“Six years into our job exodus research, we’re still hearing that people want to be told ‘thank you’. It’s something so simple, so consistently important and potentially the best retention tool we’ve got.”

Friendly workplaces were also considered important by respondents to the survey, with 54 per cent saying that having a friend at work was important to them - whilst 25 per cent admitted to remaining in their job because of a friendship rather than because they enjoyed the work. In fact, 47 per cent of respondents said they would rather have a friendly workplace than a 3 per cent pay rise.

A 2019 YouGov survey had revealed that the top priorities for workers included travel and getting a promotion or pay rise; learning new skills and getting a new job. The top five reasons found in this survey as to why employees look to hand in their notices were low salary; job tenure; monotonous or boring work; job location or length of commute and disapproval of their boss or line manager.

A survey by the Institute of Business Ethics has found that 57 per cent of those polled believe that businesses behave ethically. This is down from 62 per cent in 2018 and the first time since 2016 that the sense of business ethics has shown to have got worse in the poll. 

According to the Institute of Business Ethics, the biggest issues undermining public trust are corporate tax avoidance, executive pay and environmental responsibility with experts believing that HR has a key role in improving matters.

David D’Souza - Director of Membership at the CIPD - stated:

“HR's opportunity is to help senior teams to genuinely change the way that we operate, to make sure organisations are fit for the modern world.”  

He added that public perception was just one element of assessing the ethical health of UK businesses, and didn’t necessarily reflect the exact reality, saying:

“I think it's healthier to be concerned about the reality, because I think that's how you shift the perception over time. It's important that people keep calling out where businesses aren't doing things well. In the short term this undermines trust, but in the longer term it provides an incentive for organisations to be better.”

Research based on a Rapid Evidence Assessment - conducted by the CIPD, CEBMa and the Australian National University - to identify the factors that influence ethical behaviour at work, asked three key questions: 

• To what extent is unethical behaviour the result of individual choices?
• Is unethical behaviour the result of organisation or industry-wide problems, in particular organisational culture or ingrained norms of behaviour?
• How far is unethical behaviour due to the difficult or compromising nature of decisions that people face at work?

The research revealed that personality and mood affected people’s behaviour - frustrated worked were more likely to act unethically. Organisational culture and leadership appears to influence unethical behaviour, but moral leadership and ethical climate enhance ethical behaviour. 

It was found that certain situations can impact on ethical behaviour. Time pressure or isolated decision making can increase the likelihood of unethical behaviour - whereas accountability and checks can reduce it. 

Chadi Moussa - client partner at Let’s Talk Talent and former HR Director - stated that young people usually held businesses to a higher standard, thus highlighting how crucial it is for organisations to maintain a strong ethical reputation in order to attract the best talent. He added:

“People have an expectation that businesses operate ethically, and if that means that companies pay more voluntary tax, or if that means that companies now show clearly how they’re addressing some corporate social responsibility issues, then that's something they need to do – because it's about attracting and keeping the best people.”  

Philippa Foster Back - Director of IBE - said:

“Business appears to be increasingly proactive in addressing certain issues of public concern, such as discrimination in the workplace and openness of information. However, the fact that corporate tax avoidance, executive pay and environmental responsibility remain top of the list – and the latter two at increased proportions – indicates that business is not doing nearly enough to address the ethical issues that the public are most concerned about.” 

Recently, a central London Employment Tribunal heard the case of Adam Glover Bailie v Archer Daniels Midland Investor Services Ltd and Fabian Somerville-Cotton, in which Mr Bailie - a trader in a UK brokerage - alleged discrimination because of his disability.

Mr Bailie - who had worked for Archer Daniels Midland Investor Services Ltd for 22 years - and was the head of equities and fixed income, claimed that he had been marginalised within the company after he had a mental health breakdown. He filed for “disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation” against ADM Ltd and his manager Mr Somerville-Cotton - claiming his depression was triggered by work stress.

The Employment Tribunal judgement found that the Respondents did, in fact, discriminate against Mr Bailie because of his disability and the case will now progress to a two-day remedy hearing in January 2020.

In January 2018, Mr Bailie was diagnosed with clinical depression. In February, 2018 he was working excessively long hours to manage funds of the company and clients during wild swings in the markets. He was then prescribed anti-depressants and in May, he was given temporary medical leave for work-related stress, a situation which became permanent in August 2018. He has not worked since.

At the start of 2018, as head of the company’s global equity and fixed income divisions, he oversaw a period of market volatility. He claimed - in his witness statement - that from November 2017 he had grown increasingly concerned about a lack of stress testing by the firm’s risk division - which was designed to protect the brokerage from heavy losses. He told the hearing that “I was concerned that clients had positions that were too big and our lack of risk meant we couldn’t reduce them.”

At about 2am on February 6 - when markets had worsened - Mr Bailie said that he went to the office to “undertake urgent damage limitation on behalf of clients” but by 5.30am several clients were insolvent and facing losses of about $10m. In his witness statement he stated:

“My direct intervention in manually calculating and trading over the course of the two days considerably reduced the losses to the firm and the clients, which had the potential of running into hundreds of millions of pounds.”

In 2017, after Mr Bailie’s promotion to run the department, he had told the head of Human Resources about his stress and breakdown. He claimed that this head was hostile towards him and unsupportive after he was diagnosed as unfit for work.

Mr Bailie stated that his senior manager Mr Somerville-Cotton told his colleagues in an email that he - Mr Bailie - would continue in a senior leadership role, but that another employee would take on the role of co-head of the department with overall responsibility of the team. Mr Bailie stated that he found out about the change from colleagues while he was away. This action was in direct contrast to an assurance he had previously received from HR and felt that he was being driven out by Mr Somerville-Cotton.

The Employment Tribunal read the minutes of meetings and conversations over the last two years and found that the Respondents did discriminate against Mr Bailie because of his mental health disability and did treat him unfavourably because of “something arising in consequence of his disability” i.e. his absence from work.

Mr Bailie was represented by Irwin Mitchell, who stated that Mr Bailie was “delighted his case has been successful, not only for himself but for other workers in the industry who suffer from stress and anxiety created by a hostile and unsupportive working environment and culture.”

They further stated “This is a major step forward and will be a timely reminder to the financial services industry that it now must safeguard its workers' mental health and well-being.”

Presided over by Lady Hale sitting with Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hughes, the Supreme Court has unanimously allowed an appeal by four judges, each of whom has held one or more appointments as fee paid part-time judges - in some cases having moved between part-time and full-time salaried appointments.

In the case of Miller v Ministry of Justice, the Supreme Court ruled that part-time judges are entitled to bring their claims within three months of their retirement - rather than when their fee-paid judicial posts come to an end.

The issue in this appeal was when time begins for a claim to be made by a part-time judge to a pension under the Part-time Workers’ Directive 97/81, as applied by the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/1551) (PTWR).

Regulation 5 of the PTWR provides that a part-time worker is entitled not to be treated less favourably by their employer than the employer treats a comparable full-time worker. This can be either with regard to the terms of their contract - or by being subject to any other detriment.

The Supreme Court found that the point of unequal treatment occurs at the time the pension fails to be paid. The significance of this ruling is that it could affect over 1,000 judges who have brought claims or are relying on the moratorium.

Judicial pensions - for those appointed on or after 31 March 1995 - are provided for under the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993. The basic concept in that Act is “qualifying judicial office” and the judges, as long as they were not being paid on a salaried basis, were not included in the definition of qualifying judicial office - thereby being excluded from rights to a pension. The four judges - each of whom has held one or more appointments as fee-paid-part time judges - claimed that they had been the subject of less favourable treatment in the provision to them of a judicial pension.

The four judges each lodged a claim with the Employment Tribunal more than three months after the end of a part-time appointment. This meant that they were out of time if the relevant time for lodging a claim was within three months after retirement - but they were within time if the relevant end date is the date of retirement.

Originally, it was held that the three months started to run from the end of any part-time appointment, and thereby held that the claims were brought out of time. However, the Supreme Court issue has been treated as subject to the appeal in Ministry of Justice v O’Brien and is now understood as one of domestic law, and has been argued fully.

According to the World Economic Forum ‘Global Gender Gap Report’, the UK has slipped down the global gender equality ranking.

In 2019, the UK ranked 21st in the WEF global index – having fallen from 16th in 2018. Progress towards gender parity is measured by four key areas: economic participation and opportunity; educational attainment; health and survival and political empowerment.

With a score of one equalling gender parity, Iceland was top with a score of 0.877 - followed by Norway, Finland and Sweden. Seventh in the ranking is Ireland with a score of 0.724, which is up two places from last year. The UK came behind rich countries, including Germany, New Zealand and Canada and also less developed countries, such as the Philippines, Nicaragua and Namibia.

Employment experts have called for tougher rules to deal with discrimination in the workplace, for more flexible working opportunities to be offered to staff and for businesses to be more proactive in addressing the problems of gender inequality.

The report attributes the causes of the economic gender gap to include low levels of women in managerial or leadership positions; wage stagnation; labour force participation and income. The highest representation was in roles hit hardest by automation with too few women entering tech-driven professions and the lack of care infrastructure and access to capital limiting opportunities for women.

Klaus Schwab - World Economic Forum Executive Chairman - said:

“Supporting gender parity is critical to ensuring strong, cohesive and resilient societies around the world. For business, too, diversity will be an essential element to demonstrate that stakeholder capitalism is the guiding principle. This is why the World Economic Forum is working with business and government stakeholders to accelerate efforts to close the gender gap.”

The report - which was compiled before the general election - also cited poor political representation for women as one reason for the UK’s lower ranking.

Dr Jill Miller - Diversity and Inclusion Adviser at the CIPD - stated that the UK was making progress in gender equality, but report results show that the progress is too slow.

“The thought that future generations will still be having the same dialogue as we’re having now is unacceptable.”

She added that the insufficient care infrastructure; lack of affordable childcare; the introduction of a week’s statutory paid carers and a reform of parental leave policies to offer more choice over how parents distribute caring responsibilities, were highlighted by the report and said:

“Business can have a significant impact on wider issues such as occupational segregation – especially in future skills sectors – as well as looking at whether their own people management practices are fair and inclusive to ensure women can reach their potential and rise to the top ranks.”

Experts call for tougher workplace regulations on discrimination, saying that poor results should be a ‘big wake-up call’ for the government.

Sam Smethers - Chief Executive of the Fawcett Society - also called for stronger employment regulations to tackle discrimination, stating that if they suspect they are being discriminated against, women need to be given the right to know what a male colleague is earning. She said:

“We need a strategy for gender equality that addresses intersectional inequality, recognising that women of colour are doubly disadvantaged, tackles the underlying causes of the gap and removes the barriers to women’s economic and political participation. The fact that the UK has slipped down the international league tables and it will take generations to close the gender pay gap should act as a big wake-up call for the government.” 

UK software provider Cascade HR recently surveyed 423 HR directors with reference to what they regard as being their biggest challenges in 2019.

For the second year running - of the respondents surveyed - 40% identified engagement of staff as the major issue, with recruitment and retention of existing staff coming a close second and third at 36% and 37%.

At 29%, absence management was quoted as being another of the main challenges - whilst 22% cited wellbeing as the main focal point.

HR directors, managers and executives were also asked to indicate which their toughest problems were during the previous year and the results showed 45% cited recruitment; 36% retention and thirdly, 35% GDPR compliance.

Fortunately, despite finding retention difficult, 35% of HR teams feel that they had success in that area - as, indeed 32% also did in wellbeing; 32% in L&D and 30% in diversity.

Where GDPR is concerned, 66% of respondents stated that it had been tricky - but manageable.

Oliver Shaw - CEO of Cascade - showed a particular interest in the results of the HR replies to questions about automation - with 46% of respondents believing that automation is extremely important for the HR department to become more efficient; 29% thinking it had a partial role to play and only 2% stating that it is not important in their business.

He commented:

“HR has embraced automation and machine learning on varying levels this year. But there is a clear desire to know more about the power of tech.”

Head of Sales - Marc Greggain - commented:

“It is important that HR professionals can cut through the A1 hype and understand how to benefit from things like automation, predictive analytics and workforce planning, without losing the ‘human’ from Human Resources. Their existing HR software will invariably hold the answer.”

Despite not being the most common subject, Brexit figured in the survey with 52% of HR professionals stating that they are slightly worried about the uncertainty and the impact of leaving the EU. However, only 19% said they are extremely worried.

Oliver Shaw stated:

“It’s been an interesting year for UK organisations, with Brexit, compliance and employment tribunals dominating the headlines. But I believe some of the most pivotal developments have surrounded the future of work debate.”

He added:

“This year, the HR landscape has seen employees push back on the traditional nine-to-five more than ever before. Flexible working has stepped up a notch, and organisations that bury their head in the sand when it comes to what staff wants from employment will be those that struggle the most with recruitment and retention in 2019.”

A new calendar year often brings resignations as employees seek a change in career, but new research has shown that a festive bonus could improve staff retention.

Rewards and incentives specialists - One4allRewards - recently surveyed a total of 1,096 UK employees. It was found that 46% of the respondents admitted that a December bonus or gift from their HR bosses had persuaded them to remain loyal to their employer by not searching for a new job, or allowing themselves to be poached. Additionally, 45% stated that they would be less likely to accept a new job even if offered one.

According to the research, December is the ideal time to thank the top performers as employees appreciated bonuses more during this month - leading up to the festive season - than any other.  

Workers are more likely to look for a new job in January than any other month of the year, so December bonuses could not be timed better for staff retention purposes.

UK managing director at One4all Rewards - Alan Smith - said:

“It’s interesting to see just how far a token bonus can impact on the loyalty of those in the HR industry. Even if you just consider the amount of money that can be lost through recruitment costs when a member of staff resigns – never mind the softer negative impacts and knock-on effects that employees leaving can have, in terms of morale in the workplace – it is clearly something that is worth investing in.”

He added:

“And thanks to HM Revenue and Customs’ recent introduction of tax exemptions on trivial benefits of £50 per employee or less, it has never been more affordable for businesses to gift staff a little something to make sure they feel valued, ahead of the busiest time of the year for staff departures.”

The Chartered Management Institute - in their research - found that the average bonus payment to directors has slumped by 16% since last year, from an average of £53,504 to £44,987. This decline in rewards has happened in spite of the stressful working culture experienced by many managers.

Although the cost of December staff bonuses may seem high to some, it is dwarfed by the cost of replacing staff - not to mention negative impact and knock-on effects that employees leaving can have in terms of morale in the workplace.

New research shows that 69% of UK employees are currently unhappy at work.  

The purpose of the report is to gather insights from the “non-work related activities” campaign survey results. This survey was carried out on behalf of Hitachi Capital Invoice Finance and includes responses from 2101 individuals, focusing on how much time people spend at work doing non-work related activities; what these activities are and if they waste time at work because they are unhappy in their job.

In addition, respondents were asked if they thought their managers were lenient and what would make them feel more motivated to perform better and to be more productive.

To identify any trends, gender; age; industry worked and the region they reside in, were collected.

Of the 2,101 respondents surveyed, 61% said that the biggest distraction at work is gossiping to other co-workers. This was followed by 45% who said they spent time on Facebook and 44% using personal email.

Other admissions included 35% clock-watching; 29% making drinks or spending time in the kitchen to make the day go quicker; 25% using shopping and banking apps; 19% looking for other jobs and 17% taking bathroom breaks when not always needed.

The study shows that personal mental health is the largest distraction for younger workers aged 16-24, with 35% distracted by related symptoms when trying to work and younger employees tending to be unhappier at work than those that are older. Of those aged 55 and over, 43% stated they are always happy at work - compared to 22% of those aged between 16-24 years.

In general, men appear to be happier at work than women - 67% of men state they are unhappy against 71% of women.

The happiest at work are those in the East of England where 36% said they are happy - with the North West being the least happy at 22%.

Of those admitting to not doing their proper work, HR came out in front with 33% spending over two hours wasting time, compared to Education at 8% - the most dedicated industry.

Most people think that their manager is lenient with only 20% of them thinking that that their manager was not.

The older the person, the more productive they are and the less distracted they get. However, older people did tend to find that their managers are less lenient.

Andy Dodd - Managing Director at Hitachi Capital Invoice Finance - commented:

“Our survey has also highlighted that employees feel least motivated at work during winter, which is likely due to the weather, dark nights and activities that take place during this time. Although it can be hard as a business owner to energise staff all-year round, it’s important to take small steps to ensure that you are doing what you can to promote an exciting and rewarding culture in the workplace. This can be anything from improving internal communications within a business to effective incentive schemes.”

The Supreme Court has ruled that basing a disabled employee’s pension on the number of hours he worked – due to his disability – did not amount to discrimination.

In the case of Andrew Williams v The Trustees of Swansea University Pension & Assurance Scheme and another, the Court of Appeal considered for the first time what it means to be treated unfavourably under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.

Swansea University employed Mr Williams from June 2000 until his retirement on the grounds of ill-health in June 2013. He suffered from a disability - which fell within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 - causing him to reduce his working hours to part-time working and then to take retirement at the age of 38, on the grounds of ill-health.

During his employment with Swansea University he was an active member of the Swansea University Pension Scheme and was entitled to an ill-health early retirement pension under the Scheme, which was a DB scheme. At the time that Mr Williams retired, the accrual rate was on the basis of Career Average Revalued Earnings and an element of the benefits was calculated by reference to final salary. Therefore, as he had been working on a part-time basis, the benefits were lower than they would have been if he had been in full-time employment when retiring due to ill-health.

Mr Williams complained to the Employment Tribunal against the trustees of the Scheme and Swansea University. He stated that - by using his part-time salary rather than a full-time equivalent - the calculation of the enhancement to his benefits after June 2013 amounted to unlawful discrimination arising from disability under sections 15 and 61[1] of the EA 2010.

An initial tribunal concluded that he had not been treated fairly since his disability was the reason he was working part-time at the point of retirement, which then led to his reduced pension benefits. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) disagreed - with Judge Langstaff saying:

“Mr Williams’ reasoning could not possibly be sufficient to establish disability discrimination. If it were, it would be difficult to see why it would not apply to a disabled claimant who applies for and secures a part time job because that is as much as he can manage, but would otherwise have worked full time.”

However, the Supreme Court has now dismissed the first ruling, stating that calculating a disabled employee’s pension based on the reduced hours he worked due to his disability did not amount to discrimination.

When commenting on the decision, Employment Partner at Trowers & Hamlins - Nicola Ihnatowicz - said:

“The policy behind an employer's duty to make reasonable adjustments is to help overcome barriers and disadvantages faced by disabled employees at work. It is not uncommon for employees who are suffering from a disability to reduce their hours, and correspondingly their pay, as a reasonable adjustment which enables them to continue working.  If the employee then takes ill-health retirement, it is likely that the provisions of any defined benefit pension scheme will base the pension on their final reduced salary at retirement or a career average, without requiring employers to incur the significant cost of making up the difference.”

A new law prohibiting employers from asking job candidates about their salary history took effect on January 1, 2019 in Connecticut. It bars employers from asking job applicants how much they earn currently - or previously.

Connecticut Governor, Dannel P. Malloy, signed off Public Act No. 18-8 – ‘An Act Concerning Pay Equity’ on May 22, 2018 – to take effect on January 1, 2019. This made Connecticut the sixth state to prohibit employers from asking applicants about salary history and is intended to help remedy the pay gap between men and women. 

At that time, Dannel Malloy said:

“Income inequity is perpetuated by the practice of asking for salary history before an offer is made, which can disproportionately assure that women are underpaid at their first job and continue to be underpaid throughout their careers, creating a cycle of poverty.”

The new law states that prospective employees may not be asked about past wages and compensation histories at any point during the hiring process - although they can choose to volunteer such information. Also, prospective employees may be asked generally whether the previous employer had stock options or other equity incentives, but may not be asked to specify the value of such benefits.

In addition, the new act will add prospective employees to those entitled to sue employers who infringe any of these legal protections. Employees and prospective employees - whether or not they are hired - will be authorized to sue within two years after any alleged violation. Employers found liable for violations may be required to pay compensatory damages; attorney's fees; costs and punitive damages and may also be subject to any legal and equitable relief that the court decides is just and proper.

Although the intention of the law is to reduce pay gaps that disadvantage women, it also applies to men. Employers cannot ask men or women what they make or used to make. It does, however, contain an exception for employers, employment agencies and employees who must ask for salary information under federal or state law.

An employer is generally defined as anyone or anything that can be thought of as an employer - unlike other laws that apply only to businesses that have a certain number of employees.  

Global Human Resources Consulting firm Mercer forecasts that - for the first time ever - nearly one third of a trillion pounds will be paid by UK private sector defined benefit pension schemes over the three year period 2019 - 2021.

This record amount is due to large numbers of active and deferred members being expected to transfer the value of their entitlement to another arrangement, plus a rapidly growing buy-in and buy-out market where the forecast is for unprecedented premium volumes to be paid to insurers - with more than £20bn of defined benefit pension scheme obligations being insured.

Mercer expects the result of these payments to lead to private sector defined benefit pension scheme in aggregate being better funded with a lower risk profile.

Andrew Ward - Partner at Mercer - stated:

“A third of a trillion pounds is a huge sum of money and shows how the UK’s DB pension landscape is changing rapidly. In aggregate, UK company DB schemes are expected to be better funded and bear less risk in three years’ time. There are headwinds, not least the potential for Brexit to disrupt the landscape, but the direction of travel is clear.

As the UK DB landscape further matures, there is potential for an emerging DB Consolidator market. How this will impact the amount paid by DB schemes depends on how the new offerings are received by scheme sponsors and trustees. The recent consultation announced by the Department of Work and Pensions and the Pensions Regulator’s guidance will propel discussion in this area.”

Mercer Partner - David Ellis - commented:

“Better funded and increasingly mature pension schemes have taken advantage of excellent pricing from insurers in 2018. Mercer expects the buy-in and buy-out market to smash the record again in 2019 as well-organised schemes take advantage of attractive pricing from insurers. Overall, Mercer forecasts DB schemes will pay around £90bn in premiums to insurers over the next three years.”

Mercer also highlighted how aggregate transfer values of around £20bn for the whole of 2018, based on data for the first three quarters, will be far more than the £3bn annual average.

According to the latest report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are now more job openings - 6.6 million as of June 1 - than there are unemployed people - 6.1 million - making job seekers and workers in the driver's seat in today’s market.

This has resulted in no-shows and mysterious disappearances happening nationally across a wide range of industries - known as ghosting.

Many HR professionals and hiring managers are baffled when great job candidates either do not respond to calls, texts and e-mails about a job offer; do not show up to work or - having been hired - walk out without a word, never to be heard from again.

Michelle Madhok, CEO and founder of Shefinds.com - stated:

"Job candidates have been ghosting lately. There was a woman we interviewed several times. She came in, did a presentation and expressed excitement in a follow-up email. I was going to make her an offer, but she vanished. She wouldn't respond to the recruiter either. I don't get it. Just say you are going somewhere else or decided to do something different!"

Eugene Hunt - Principal of At Trevi Communications Inc. in Danvers, Mass. says that managers no longer get too excited when their company receives an e-mail from a well-qualified candidate. He states:

"Now we see every applicant as another move in a game of chance, since the odds are about 1 in 4 that they will go through the process without becoming distracted or disengaged-and disconnect-at some point."  He added that:

“….it is a case of a buyer's market … with myriad opportunities and no consequences if you just walk away from an employer or job offer without ever communicating or engaging."

However, management is known to be notorious for ghosting - they tell you that they want to hire you - they want to move fast - and then you never hear from them again. There are many examples of candidates who have applied for jobs, been interviewed and even been asked to write proposals. Once sent, HR is never to be heard from again.

Susan Hosage, SHRM-SCP, Senior Consultant and Executive Coach for OneSource HR Solutions in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. Recruiters commented:

"For years, candidates anxiously awaited responses from employers after meticulously preparing their resumes and cover letters, attending interviews and then-cricket sounds-nothing. Recruiters dodged phone calls and deleted messages from candidates who wanted to know their hiring status. Now, the tables have turned."

Susan Hosage also commented on possible reasons for ghosting by experienced candidates - lack of a sense of loyalty or obligation to the company/ managers or possibly because of a generational trend to avoid conflict.    However, she pointed out that:

"Conflict management is a necessary skill in almost any job, since most people don't work with complete autonomy."

Peter Cappelli - Professor of Management and Education at The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and director of the school's Center for HR – said:

"Employers have been ghosting applicants for decades, so I'd say turnabout is fair play.”

He suggested that employers concerned about job candidates ghosting them should give the candidates a deadline to withdraw from consideration.   He added:

“……if the problem is you think it's rude - well, now you know how candidates feel."

The Recruitment & Employment Confederation (REC) survey and HIS Markit’s Report on Jobs have released figures suggesting that the number of permanent staff placements - and starting salaries - increased at the fastest pace in four months, at the end of 2017. 

They also reported that the growth of temporary placements was high with a marked decline in staff availability - the sharpest decrease reported in the last two years - contributing to steep increases in pay. Overall demand for staff remained sharp, firmly above the average seen over the 20-year survey history.

The REC/HIS Markit’s Report on Jobs provides the most comprehensive guide to the UK labour market, using original survey data provided by a panel of 400 UK recruitment consultancies.  

Figures released by Totaljobs on their website also reflected the recruitment boom, suggesting that there had been an increase of 20% in the number of jobs advertised in the first week of 2018 compared to the same period in 2016.

On a regional basis, the Midlands continued to show the fastest increase in permanent placements at the end of the year and the least rate of growth was seen in London - but London registered the fastest increase in temp billings of all five monitored UK regions in December. Expansion was also sharp elsewhere.

December data pointed to rising demand for staff, both in the private and public sector, although growth remained sharper for the private sector.

This information, however, contrasts with the official statistics from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) which revealed that there had been a 2% overall fall in employment, together with 0.2% fall in real weekly earnings, including bonuses.

Charles Cotton – reward adviser at the CIPD – stated:

“The REC survey is focusing specifically on recruitment and individuals being placed in organisations but is not necessarily looking at those who are leaving or being made redundant. The broader picture, including labour market issues, must be taken into consideration to reach a balanced view of what is really happening in the recruitment market.”

REC chief executive Kevin Green said:

“Employers, as a response to these candidate shortages, are offering increased starting salaries to attract staff – but while this has been the case for some time, it isn’t translating into significant wage growth across the economy yet,”

Charles Cotton warned that increases in starting salary may not be good for employees in the longer term:

“Organisations are increasing starting salaries to get people through the door but, once they are in there, then this does not improve particularly fast, and if they have been appointed to the top of their pay range they may not see much of a pay rise at all.”  

He added:

“That is an issue we called out last month in the CIPD’s latest reward management survey, which could throw up a number of employee relations issues in the longer term. Employers should always seek to confirm how long and enduring the recruitment surge will be before taking people on to permanent contracts.”

“Whether taking on new staff permanently or shifting existing employees from temporary to permanent contracts, it’s important to be creative and consider your working culture, what people are being paid, and non-financial benefits that could put you ahead in terms of recruitment, as well as ensuring you don’t undersell or oversell for the job you advertise.”

Kevin Green, REC Chief Executive says:

“Early in the New Year, people often think about changing jobs, so employers are going to have to think carefully about how they can both retain existing capabilities and find the new hires they need as competition for people intensifies. Bosses should consider going to wider talent pools and to be inventive about how to improve their employer brand and make themselves an even more attractive place to work.”

The Department of Health and Human Services and other executive departments and agencies have been given the authority and discretion to roll back certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) after President Trump signed an executive order.

As Congress had tasked the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with the enforcement of several key components of ACA - including the individual mandate, it was unclear as to what that actually meant.  

However, it appears that the IRS - despite warnings to employers that it would not be giving extensions or penalty relief - will not be enforcing the mandate and the IRS has said that they will be extending the deadline for distributing Forms 1095-B and 1095-C to individuals by 30 days to March 2, 2018.  The date for filing Forms 1094-B and 1094-C (and Forms 1095) with IRS has not been extended and remains at February 28, 2018 for paper forms and April 2, 2018 for electronic filing.

In addition to extending the deadline, the IRS will once again offer penalty relief if a company can show that it has made good-faith efforts at complying with the demands of ACA reporting, such as gathering necessary data and transmitting it to a third-party to prepare required reports; testing the ability to transmit data to the IRS and taking steps to ensure compliance for the 2018 tax year.

At the end of 2017, the IRS announced it would begin assessing employer mandates penalties on companies for their 2015 reporting but now the IRS has revealed the specific letter it will issue, when the letter will be issued; the time frame for which the letters apply and an official sample of the letter it will be using.

If it is determined that an applicable large employer company did not fulfill the ACA’s offer of coverage rules or had one or more of its full-time employees receive a premium tax credit for at least one month in 2015 - the IRS will issue a letter. 

A response to the letter will be required by the date shown on the letter - which is usually 30 days from the date of issue.

Employers with at least one employee or more are required to conspicuously show Labor Law posters in an area frequented by all employees – for example, locations could include designated bulletin boards in the break room, above time clocks, in the employee lounge or in a cafeteria or a lunch room.

Failure to fulfil the posting requirements can result in a steep fine. Most federal, state and local penalties range from $500 to $10,000 per offense; however, agencies retain discretion about whether to assess or reduce such statutory penalties but penalties may also be escalated after the first offense.

The new year of 2018 brings in new compliance standards – meaning that employers will have to update their posters.  The new information required concerns federal and state minimum wages, safety at work and health regulations.  However, only some employers are required to display some of the posters – for example the Family and Medical Leave Act needs to be shown by employers of over 50 workers and small businesses would not be subject to the Act's posting requirements.

To assist employers, the Department Of Labor can provide electronic copies of the required posters and some of the posters are available in languages other than English.

Franklin Wolf, an attorney with Fisher Phillips in Chicago, stated: “Employers should not be shy about conferring with counsel about any updates in the law.”  He added: “Laws applicable to employers may change at a rapid pace and without much mainstream news coverage. This is particularly true for state and local laws."

Aaron Warshaw, an attorney with Ogletree Deakins in New York City, said: “Consulting with counsel may lead to a more detailed compliance discussion. For example, you may start a call asking about the poster requirements under New York state law, but the attorney may say, 'Hey, by the way …,' and you end up talking about the recently enacted New York City Fair Workweek Law."

He added, “Whenever a client asks me to handle an onsite inspection by a government agency, one of the first steps I take is examine the site's workplace posters". He continued "If a government investigator sees that the employer has not updated its EEO and wage and hour posters since the Bush administration, then he or she may reasonably conclude that the employer's general employment practices have not been updated either."

In a survey of 2,187 CEOs and business leaders, the leadership consulting firm of Zenger Folkman identified "establishing stretch goals" as the No.1 competency gap among HR leaders.  These leaders are spread across hundreds of different organizations with 68% located in the US, 11% in Asia, 8% in Europe, 7% in Latin America, 4% in Canada, and 1% in Africa.

Steve Rice, CHRO of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in Seattle, said:

“HR leaders can be overly risk averse to their own detriment. Fear drives mediocrity. It's necessary to take risks to move forward.”

After comparing an appraisal of leaders in the HR function with those of leaders in other functions, the data suggests that the typical HR leader is seen as six percentile points below average. HR seems to have become every manager and employee’s favorite corporate punch bag, competing with IT for the title of the most-irritating function.  

The data was analyzed in two different ways. The results for the 2,187 HR leaders in the dataset was compared with those of 29,026 leaders in other functions. A few key skills that were common strengths of those in HR and also some that appeared as weaknesses were identified.

Generally speaking, one of the most positive areas for HR leaders was that they were very concerned about developing other staff. This separated them from leaders in other functions, who did not score highly on this skill. They also rated positively on providing coaching, acting as a mentor and giving feedback in a helpful way.  The persons taking the survey were also asked to indicate the importance of each competency measured - they rated this skill eleventh of 16 for HR leaders. Therefore it could be that developing others is not taken as seriously as other competencies that are highly valued by the other functional leaders.

Areas where HR leaders scored higher than leaders in other functions were in building positive relationships, role modelling and having functional knowledge and expertise.

When comparing HR leaders to all other leaders they were not rated positively on their ability to understand the needs and concerns of customers. The function of HR appears to focus on internal problems - and the apparent lack of understanding of the external environment causes others to view some HR leaders as not in touch with the issues facing the organization.

Other weaknesses pinpointed were their inability to view the larger picture, focusing instead on the day-to-day issues and a general lack of speed and urgency to respond and react quickly to problems.

The survey did show, however, that HR leaders were among some of the best leaders in the world.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that employers must consult unions when changing employees’ terms and conditions when they are signed up to collective bargaining.

The EAT upheld a decision made by the Sheffield Employment Tribunal to compensate employees of Kostal UK – an electronics manufacturer – for the breaching of collective bargaining rules. The employees were members of the trade union Unite.  It was found that the company had made unlawful inducements to the employees to sign a new contract without consulting with the union and ruled that it must pay its employees compensation of £3,800 for each unlawful inducement made.

Eat judge Mrs Justice Simler stated that section 145b of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992 seeks to prevent employers “going over the heads of the union with direct offers in order to achieve the result that one or more terms will not be determined by collective agreement with the union if the offers are accepted”.

The claims resulted from a failed agreement between Kostal and Unite, following a proposal for a 2% increase in basic pay, plus an additional 2% for those earning less than £20,000 – together with a Christmas bonus payable during the 2015 festive season.  In addition, Kostal sought a sick pay and Sunday overtime reduction for new employees and consolidation of the two 15-minute breaks currently in operation, into one 30-minute break.

In December 2015, Kostal wrote to employees asking that they sign a new contract containing the new terms and conditions or risk losing their Christmas bonus.  Those who did not accept the offer were again urged to do so in January 2016.  The union was not aware of this contact and subsequently – on behalf of the employees – sued Kostal for compensation, which they won.

Kostal appealed and argued that it had not intended to encourage employees out of collective bargaining but to inform them that there was a time limit on the offer of the Christmas bonus.  Agreement was eventually reached on pay and amended terms and conditions, but by then the offer of the Christmas bonus was no longer applicable.

In her judgement, Mrs Justice Simler said that the law prohibited offers made to workers who are members of a recognised trade union – or one seeking recognition by their employer – if acceptance of the offer would have a prohibited result and the sole or main purpose in making the offers is to achieve that result. The prohibited result is that the workers’ terms of employment, or any of those terms, “will not, or will no longer, be determined by collective agreement negotiated by or on behalf of the union”.  She also quoted a government review of the law that confirmed the law should explicitly prohibit inducements or bribes being made to trade union members to forego union rights.

Ranjit Dhindsa, Partner and head of the employment, pensions and immigration team at Fieldfisher stated:

“That means employers or unions cannot go behind the veil of collective terms by going directly to employees when it suits them. A lot of employers get frustrated with collective bargaining, as seen here when Kostal couldn’t come to a pay agreement with its union.”

She added:

“….a lot of employers may have tried this tactic and got away with it, but they can’t now assume that they will”.  

Howard Beckett, assistant general secretary for legal services at Unite, said:

“The decision confirmed employers cannot dip in and out of collective bargaining when it suits their purposes and this is key to protecting workers and trade unions from underhand employer tactics.”

A forecast issued during December 2017 by the Hay Group division of Korn Ferry shows that salaries are to rise by only 1.5% globally, when adjusted for inflation. This is considerably down on 2017’s prediction of 2.3% and 2016’s prediction of 2.5%.

The figures were calculated using Korn Ferry’s pay database and according to their website, contains data from more than 20 million job holders in 25,000 organizations, across more than 110 countries. Using predicted salary increases for 2018 as forecasted by global HR departments and comparing them to predictions made at this time last year regarding 2017, it also takes into account 2018 inflation data from the Economist Intelligence Unit.

In the US, an average increase of 2.8% is predicted – this is about the same as last year. However, when adjusted for inflation (expected to be 2% in 2018) the real wage increase is only around 0.9% - which is down from 1.9% last year.

Western Europe, which incorporates the UK, fairs less well with an average increase of 2.3% predicted and the inflation-adjusted real wage giving an increase of only 0.9%.

Bob Wesselkamper, who is Global Head of Rewards and Benefits Solutions at Korn Ferry stated:

"With inflation rising in most parts of the world, we're seeing a cut in real wage increases across the globe."

He added:

"On average, employees are not seeing the same real pay growth they did even one year ago."

As per the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Court, Fair Labor Standards Act violators can now be hit with emotional distress damage payouts as well.

The ruling came as the result of a case involving Santiago Pineda, a maintenance worker and his employer/landlord JTCH Apartments.  As part of Pineda’s compensation, he was given a discounted rent.  When Pineda filed a wage-and-hour lawsuit against the apartment complex to recover overtime pay for work he said he performed, JTCH reacted by evicting Pineda and his wife. 

In the notice Pineda and his wife received, the reason for eviction was cited as a failure to pay rent in an amount equal to the discount he received.  On top of the original lawsuit, Pineda tacked on a claim of emotional distress due to the fact that he could lose his home.  At this point, the court needed to determine whether or not FLSA allows for the recovery of emotional distress damages.

The court ultimately said that the FLSA’s damage provision allows for “such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate,” and is expansive enough to include emotional distress damages.  The court remanded the case to a jury to determine the amount of emotional distress Pineda would be entitled to.  The jury ruled that JTCH owes Pineda $6,600 for overtime and retaliation, in addition to $76,000 in attorney fees.  However, this does not include emotional distress payouts, since this number has not been decided on yet.

According to HR experts, employers need to be making sure they’re following laws now more than ever because any employee who feels they’ve been wronged can collect on multiple claims, including emotional distress.  

The California Supreme Court ruled employers in California cannot require workers to remain on duty or “on call” during their rest breaks.

In a statement made by the state high court on December 22 it was determined that “during required rest periods, employers must relieve their employees of all duties and relinquish any control over how employees spend their break time.”

In Augustus v ABM Security Services, Inc., the state high court was asked to rule on whether or not a security company violated California law because it required guards to carry radios and remain on call during rest periods.  The guards argued that since they were on call and could be contacted at any point on their break, they weren’t actually on a break.  A trial court found in favor of the guards, granting them $90 million in damages, interest and penalties.  The California Court of Appeal vacated the judgement but the California Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal, agreeing with the trial court.

Additionally, employers also shouldn’t suggest or require that employees carry company cell phones, pagers or any other kind of communication device during their rest breaks.  This doesn’t mean employees cannot, just that they should not be required to.    

Typically, a nonexempt employee in California is entitled to a paid, 10-minute rest break for every four hours that are worked.  Violating the Supreme’s Court ruling could cost a company big time.  If a company violates this law, the employee must be given an additional hour of pay for each workday their full rest breaks are not provided.

HR experts suggest that to avoid any kind of confusion, employers should encourage workers to take any kind of break away from their workstations, that way there is no chance of the employer inadvertently breaking the law.

State-level changes spelling out salary threshold increases for administrative and executive exemptions from overtime pay have been updated for New York employers. 

Although the federal overtime rule remains undecided, the final rule on increases took effect on December 31 and was published just a few days earlier by New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL). 

For the most part, increases are different in each geographic location, with changes in New York City based on the size of the employer.

HR expertsexpect that most companies already had a plan in place to deal with the changes since a proposed federal rule would have raised the exempt salary threshold much higher under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

The current statewide exempt salary threshold in New York is approximately $675 per week.  The increases by geographic area and employer size are as follows: 

A recent study by the Academy of Management says that trying to change the minds of old workers’ managers isn’t enough when it comes to reducing the growing trend of age bias, as baby boomers extend their time in the workforce. 

A better idea, according to the study, is to create mature-age practices to engage older employees, counter their fears of bias and suppress bias tendencies occurring around them.  HR experts explain that policies created specifically to recognize and encourage mature-age workers sends a consistent and constant signal that tends to lessen their concerns about age bias. 

The study sampled 666 employers, ages 45 and up and proved that mature-age practices are scarce in most organizations.  One human resource expert explained that older workers don’t necessarily want anything that is too different from what younger workers want. 

At the end of the day, all employees should be getting performance-related feedback relevant to their career stage regardless of their age.  Companies not only need to be thinking about individual practices for older workers, but they also need to be thinking about nurturing a work atmosphere with a culture that encourages workers of all ages without bias.

A recent decision from a federal district court in Wisconsin is a great reminder of how important it is to follow legal compliance laws in compensation. 

Lenore O’Brien, a female employee began working for Unity Health Plans Insurance Corp. in May 2009 as a large-group account executive, for a salary of just over $67,000.  At around the same time, Unity also hired a male employee, Ryan Pelz, under the same job title as O’Brien but with a starting salary of $75,000.  Over the course of time, both O’Brien and Pelz received merit increases in base salary but because of the starting salary difference, O’Brien’s salary never matched Pelz’s.  In October 2014, O’Brien resigned from her position and sued the company for unequal pay under the Federal Equal Pay Act.

The court immediately denied a motion for summary judgement filed by Unity and noted that an Equal Pay Act plaintiff only needs to prove a few things: different wages paid to employees of the opposite sex, these employees performed equal work with equal skill and effort and the employees had similar working conditions.

Unity didn’t want to go down without a fight, of course.  The company argued that O’Brien was paid less because she had less experience than Pelz in selling group health insurance.  The court reviewed the terms of the job description for O’Brien and Pelz at the time of hiring and said the job description wasn’t detailed enough for Unity to make that kind of claim.  The court actually found that O’Brien and Pelz both matched the primary qualifications that had been spelled out in the description and ultimately favored O’Brien.

HR experts urge companies to use this case as an example of what to avoid.  Consistency and accuracy in HR-related records is imperative to avoiding, or at least limiting, legal liability.  

It seems J.P. Morgan Chase may have unfinished business with the IRS over a year after it paid more than $300 million to resolve regulators’ claims that the bank failed to explain to wealthy clients why it was steering them into its own funds.

While the bank said its actions were unintentional and promised to be more transparent moving forward, it did admit to disclosure lapses at the time of the settlement among securities and commodities regulators.  A whistleblower is now claiming, however, the misdeeds extended beyond a lack of disclosure. 

The whistleblower is claiming that a portion of clients’ money was in tax-advantaged pension funds potentially skirting IRS rules while favoring its own funds.      

The whistleblower is an unidentified former J.P. Morgan employee who started working with the Securities and Exchange Commission early on in the investigation.  The whistleblower filed a previously unreported claim to the IRS over this retirement funds issue, potentially leaving the bank on the hook for another sum of hundreds of millions of dollars in tax penalties.

HR experts explain the whistleblower is being represented by Dean Zerbe, and Zerbe’s client will remain out of the public.  Zerbe feels that it is the IRS’s duty to subject the bank to substantial bank penalties. Of course, the IRS does not have to move forward and endorse the whistleblower’s claim for any legal action.  There is no indication that the IRS is leaning either way at this time.

In a consultation launched on 19^th December 2016, the government is looking for opinions on which body should replace the Money Advice Service (MAS), The Pensions Advisory Service (TPAS) and Pension Wise.

The plan is to consolidate publicly funded debt advice, pensions and money guidance into one body, as opposed to having three separate services.  Human resource experts further explain that this new body could take on an even more important role working with the charity sector and financial services sector to understand consumer needs.

Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Simon Kirby, said the goal is really to help people take control of their money and ensure they make the right decisions.  Minister for Pensions, Richard Harrington, also chimed in saying that financial guidance for everyone is of the utmost importance to ensure people can make the most of their hard-earned savings.

“This new single body will be a place people can go for free, impartial financial guidance,” Harrington said.

The single financial guiding body, hoping to be in place by autumn 2018, will be responsible for: debt advice, occupational or personal pensions guidance, guidance on how to avoid financial fraud and scams, the coordination of non-government financial education programmes for the young and guidance on wider-money matters.

In the interim, while the new governing body is put together, the MAS, TPAS and Pension Wise will continue to operate business as usual.

According to the 11^th edition of the Purple Book, trends in DB pensions have stabilised within this past year, bumping the future of defined benefit pensions way up on the public agenda.

In the last twelve months, the data shows that scheme funding has changed ever so slightly.  Overall, the aggregate deficit fell a few points while the aggregate funding ratio increased very little.

The Purple Book was published on 8^th December 2016 by the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) and covers the 5,794 DB pension schemes it protects.  Most of the data is based on information from any eligible DB schemes and analyses performance from 1^st April 2015 - 31^st March 2016.

Most of the change in habits is found in asset allocation with the average allocation invested in bonds increasing to over 50% for the first time ever.  On the flip side, the proportion invested in equities fell slightly from 33% to 30.3%, which continues to drive a trend that was seen since the Purple Book was first published.

Human resource experts unanimously agree that 2016 has been very interesting for defined benefit pensions, also agreeing that more needs to be done to instigate progress.  The average recovery plan length has barely improved at all.

Overall, the Purple Book 2016 does a great job of highlighting the need for effective risk management and also affirms the importance of the PPF safety net for members of schemes who fail to pay exactly what they promised to pay.

A new report by the British Psychological Society, BPS, claims women could progress further in their careers if they learned how to use their social capital to help them reach the top of the ranks.

The findings from the report were presented at the BPS’ Division of Occupational Psychology annual conference held in Nottingham.  The data revealed women who held positions like CEO and Managing Director felt their ability to build, maintain and capitalise on their social abilities helped them get to where they are today.

A majority of the conference participants voiced their concerns over the general population of women lacking the ability to expand their network of contacts.  While it may not be right, the “who you know and who knows you” kind of networking mindset is seemingly responsible for a large percentage of career progression.  Limited access to certain social “platforms” could hinder a female’s ability to be promoted.  These kinds of social capital tools, according to HR professionals, should be revered and not feared.

The report’s findings come on the heels of the recent Davies review, which set a target for FTSE 100 firms to have 33 percent female board members by 2020.  The FTSE 100 have done an extraordinarily good job at integrating more women into their boardrooms, as since 2011, they have nearly doubled the amount of women on their boards.

Although we may be seeing more women in leadership roles, the pendulum is still not evenly set.  A government consultation called Closing the Gender Pay Gap disclosed that many women in the UK earn approximately 29% less than their male counterparts.   With more eyes on gender equality than ever before, Section 78 of the Equality Act 2010 is expected to come into force in Spring of this year.  This will require employers with over 250 employees to publish information about the amounts they pay female and male staff.

While strides have certainly been made in gender equality in the workplace, the human resources industry collectively believes there is still a long way to go.

The Resolution Foundation think thank conducted an analysis of wage growth and found some disappointing realities.

Think tank is estimating that real-time pay is more likely to increase by a mere one percent by this time next year, due primarily to Britain’s productivity problem and history of inflation.  Predictions made last year optimistically estimated an average of a two to two and a half percent increase year over year.

A human resource expert affiliated with the Resolution Foundation revealed there are actually “signs of flattening-in measure of slack, and the expectation remains that inflation will soon start rising.” 

The analysis argues that if productivity growth didn’t increase at all and remained the same while inflation increases to what the Bank of England wants, by the end of 2016 real wage will only increase by an approximate percentage point.

While the Resolution Foundation certainly presents a valid argument, not all human resource experts believe this to be truth.  One HR professional recently expressed how UK employees should really feel optimistic.  Although some sectors are seeing a slowdown in wage growth, the economy is still technically playing catch up after the many post-recession years. 

There is not one economy that won’t feel the ups and downs of the marketplace, and not all sectors are created equal.  Some HR experts suggest that wage growth cannot even be measured through an overarching number accounting for all sectors, but needs to be evaluated sector by sector.

Is a dismissal for gross misconduct fair, if the terminated employee was not made aware that a previous behaviour may lead to a termination?  This was the question the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) had to ask in the case of John-Charles v NHS Business Services Authority.

In this case, John-Charles worked as an IT network engineer from September 2009.  After a history of failing to follow “reasonable management instructions”, a written warning was issued in January 2013.

A few months prior to this written warning in October 2012, it was alleged that this particular employee breached the employer’s IT policies by using an unauthorised device, as well as entering an office building against instructions.  As a result of these actions, a formal disciplinary hearing was heard in March 2013.  The employer told John-Charles that the manager in charge of the hearing wouldn’t be told about the written warning unless the allegations surrounding the 2012 incident were actually proven to be factual.

The disciplinary manager upheld some of the allegations and did find that John-Charles was guilty of committing gross misconduct.  This manager, however, did not decide on the sanction.  She did consider giving him a final written warning, and at this time became aware of the written warning that was already issued. 

At this point, the HR advisor told the disciplinary manager that issuing a final written warning would actually lead to John-Charles’ dismissal, due to the other written warning already on file.  The manager in charge decided it was best to dismiss the employee because the other written warning helped prove that he was unable to follow reasonable directions given by management.  He was therefore dismissed for gross misconduct.  John-Charles brought multiple claims at this point, unfair dismissal being one of them.

An employment tribunal decided that the employee was dismissed for his conduct back in 2012, which was potentially fair.  The employer didn’t necessarily act unreasonably taking the written letter into account, so it was at this point that the tribunal found the dismissal to be fair.  John-Charles appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal and decided that John-Charles was unfairly dismissed because he hadn’t been told the true significance of his written warning.  Additionally, the EAT found that he hadn’t been given any chance to make representations on what had become an issue during the disciplinary process.  The EAT claimed these two issues made the dismissal unfair and a “breach of the rules of natural justice”.

The EAT also felt that it wasn’t completely unreasonable for the employer to take the written warning into account since it directly related to behaviour.  It was the mere fact that there was not a single opportunity for the employee to address this in front of the disciplinary board.  This error in procedure is what made the employee’s case.

Less than one month after Office for National Statistics (ONS) data proved that the gender pay gap stood at 9.4%, research from the Chartered Management Institute (CMI) reveals that the gap gets worse as women rise up through the ranks.

The data submitted on behalf of the CMI found that women over the age of 40 years old who hold management roles receive pay that is approximately 35% lower than men in comparable positions.  When women hit their 60’s, the gap widens to about 38%.

The research was presented by CMI chief executive, Anne Francke to a select committee during a discussion surrounding gender equality.  Francke said:

Anyone who thinks they’ve abolished the glass ceiling just by hitting Lord Davies’ targets is misguided.  Equality and fair progression means much more than having the same number of men and women on boards.  Female managers face what I believe is a ‘glass pyramid.’ The walls close in with every step, and women are likely to slip down the pecking order when it comes to pay.

Lord Davies made recommendations that organisations should aim to have a boardroom that is at least 33% women.  Human resource experts also agreed when Francke said that managers at every level should really be held accountable in some facet for equality in the workplace. Francke goes on to state that if women aren’t getting paid whatever the average going rate is for any given position, it could be considered discrimination.

The select committee Francke presented to will consider all of the evidence in order to determine areas for improvement.  Regulation on gender pay reporting is already on the list. 

Last month, the Federal Reserve announced that benchmark interest rates would rise by a quarter of a percentage point with similar increases expected in upcoming quarters.  This news comes after almost a decade of keeping interest rates down to close to zero.  For workers who participate in 401(k) programs, there will be some advantages and some disadvantages that will come with this change.

For many participants, the fact that rate hikes bring higher returns paid on savings is a good thing.  For those investing in mutual funds, higher interest rates are not a good thing but will be welcomed by plan participants who want to avoid as much risk as possible.  People close to retirement tend to invest more heavily in mutual funds because of the low level of risk involved.

Human resource experts explain that while some things are predictable, the effects the interest rate increase will have on the stock markets is extremely variable.  The increases have some people worried about higher borrowing costs for individuals and businesses.  The fact that higher rates bring about more stock market uncertainty makes a higher probability of a stock decline very real. 

Higher interest rates can also mean that long-term bond funds, traditionally known to be less volatile than stock funds, are likely to come under pressure due to their value decreasing when new bonds are issued with higher interest payouts.

The fact that bond fund payments come from two sources should help ease some of the concern.  One HR expert explained that higher rates could actually boost interest payment and serve as a buffer for negative price returns.  Bond funds, in theory, should actually see growth over the course of the next decade.

Higher interest rates are also expected to improve the funding issues for defined benefit pension plans because this trend will lower plan sponsors’ required contributions to achieve full funding. 

At the end of the day, 401(k) participants should be looking at the long-term effects since they are long-term investors.  Day-to-day and month-to-month changes will happen. Typically, it is expert advice to stick with their savings and investment plan even during periods of market change and uncertainty.

All industries have undoubtedly evolved due to the introduction of the internet and human resources are certainly not exempt.  Job search behavior has dramatically changed as technology has progressed but research has found that many employers and HR professionals are still relying on older, traditional methods of seeking and attracting talent. 

The joint study conducted by The Boston Consultancy Group and Recruit Works Institute looked at jobseeker trends and found that a third of employees who switched jobs in 2014 rated internet sites at the most effective outlet for finding a new job posting.  The study questioned more than 13,000 people from 13 countries in order to get a clear reading on channels used throughout the job search, time spent and the income change experienced within different regions.

Each year, approximately 20 percent of workers worldwide end up changing jobs and 55 percent of those jobseekers cited internet recruitment sites as their go to for postings.

The United Kingdom jobseekers serve as an example of how to use this new kind of technology advantageously.  Fifty-two percent of respondents stated that internet job sites were most effective and most important when it came to finding a new job.

When UK citizens were questioned about the length of time their job search lasted, respondents reported spending an average of about 14 weeks, between nine weeks of research and applications and five weeks until an offer was received.

In addition to searching and perusing these different online feeds, jobseekers are also able to subscribe to numerous job updates, which are sent via email. 

Although most employers seem to understand the importance of the internet, the survey found that HR professionals were failing to capitalize on the shift when it comes to attracting and finding new talent.  Many employers are still relying heavily on referrals and word of mouth but the introduction of the internet allows companies to process a much higher volume of applications at a much faster rate than ever before.  These job postings are also able to reach more people than ever before, potentially even better talent.

HR experts feel as though using the internet in job searching is still a fairly new concept and although many employers and companies have yet to adapt, at a certain point in time they probably won’t have any other choice.

An employment tribunal recently awarded £183,773 in damages in the UK’s first case of caste discrimination, causing many human resource experts to wonder if employers could be facing an increase in these kinds of claims.

The landmark case is centred around Permila Tirkey, who came from Bihar (one of the poorest parts of India) and was recruited to work in the United Kingdom.  Shortly after being recruited Tirkey was kept in domestic servitude and forced to work as a maid and nanny.

When the claim was initially made, many employers didn’t feel as though it could ever apply to them.  This case, however, proves that the Equality Act can be used to argue caste discrimination.  Although the Equality Act doesn’t directly cover caste, it does in fact cover ethnicity under race discrimination.  This is the part used to drive Tirkey v Chandok.

Tirkey’s solicitor, Victoria Marks, works for the Anti Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit and explains that this was a very useful judgment for victims facing modern day slavery.

While £183,773 may seem like a hefty number, this payout only covers compensation in relation to unpaid wages.  The case is due to go back to tribunal in order to determine the discrimination part of the reward.

One human resource expert, Audrey Williams from law firm Fox Williams, feels as though this is a positive development because it confirms that caste discrimination can be argued, regardless of how much uncertainty surrounds to what extent.

Since caste is now at the forefront of the human resource industry, it is highly important that all employers within the UK be aware of any biases in judgment, leadership or harassment that could specifically be due to caste discrimination.

The United States economy added 252,000 jobs in December 2014 pushing unemployment to fall from 5.8% to 5.6%, according to the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).    

These very encouraging numbers also show that unemployment fell an entire percentage point in 2014 from 6.6% in January to 5.6% by the end of the year.  Growth in multiple industries occurred last year.  Professional and business services employment rose by 52,000 in December, while construction added 48,000 jobs in the same month.  Manufacturing saw an increase year over year from 2013, while employment in retail grew by almost 250,000 in 2014.     

While the news of job growth is extremely encouraging, these statistics were a little bit offset by a dip in the average hourly earnings, which fell by 5 cents in December from the month prior.  On average, however, hourly earnings did rise year over year, although it was extremely small.     

The labor force participation rate also decreased and the number of people who are referred to as “involuntary part-time workers” remained the same.  Another number that remained the same was the number of people classified as wanting to work but who aren’t actively seeking work.         

To some HR experts probably the most important part of the BLS data was the fact that the number of “discouraged workers” dropped by almost 200,000 year over year.  This is defined as a group who have given up looking for work.  Overall human resource professionals are calling the data from the BLS proof that the country is moving in the right direction.

In most cases, a Wyoming employee who is fired is entitled to unemployment benefits.  This remains true unless the termination was due to a form of misconduct. 

Tommy Doggett worked for Strokers, Inc. repairing and servicing Harley Davidson motorcycles.  In 2011, Doggett was instructed to repair a motorcycle that belonged to Strokers owner, Jeff Martin.  When Martin returned home from an extended vacation he found that Doggett had not fixed the motorcycle.  Doggett said that he had been unaware of the request to service the bike and immediately went to work on it. 

In the middle of servicing the motorcycle, Doggett chipped a fin on the motor.  He quickly repaired the fin but did not tell Martin about the damage or the repair.  After five years of employment, Martin fired Doggett.  Martin said that Doggett was terminated for customer complaints and additional costs to fix his errors.  Doggett, however, claims Martin told him he was fired because he wanted to take the shop in a different direction and could no longer afford his services.  Doggett filed for unemployment benefits and pursued his case via several different decision makers, including the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Doggett’s claim relied heavily on his employer’s knowledge of his poor work performance at the time of the termination.  The Unemployment Insurance Commission found that Doggett’s admissions of chipping Martin’s motor and other incidents supported a denial of benefits.  The commission also decided that Doggett’s intentional disregard justified his termination for misconduct.  The Supreme Court, however, reversed the denial of unemployment benefits. 

The Court held that a denial of benefits couldn’t be based on something that the employer didn’t know of at the time of the termination.  In order to be denied benefits, the employee must have been terminated due to misconduct.  This meant it would have had to have been documented.  HR experts explain that Doggett couldn’t have been punished for chipping the fin of the motorcycle because Martin didn’t know about it when it happened.  He found out long after the fact.

HR experts urge employers to take the time to document any customer complaints or misconduct in order to avoid a case like this. 

Approximately 407,000 savers who joined pension schemes within the last three years could be subject to a charge of over 1% in the future.  Over a quarter of these savers could be exposed to charges of over 2% - 3%.

These were only some of the results contained in the final report of the Independent Project Board’s (IPB) audit of charges and benefits in legacy defined contribution workplace pensions schemes.  The Board was asked to look at legacy schemes at risk of being subject to charges of a certain percentage.  It was also asked to recommend what actions should then be taken by the new Independent Governance Committees and Trustees.

The IPB gave recommendations such as pension scheme holders should review their data to pinpoint any factors that may have justified high charges.  Furthermore, the IPB recommends that the Department for Work and Pensions and the Financial Conduct Authority review industry-wide progress in fixing poor value schemes and is asking that they publish a report by the end of 2016.

HR experts are commending the board on the recently released report explaining that it may not solve any problems, but it is definitely shining light on the issue and exposing these very harsh truths that many people are not fully aware of.