The Public Accounts Committee’s updated Covid 19 cost tracker - published last week - has revealed that the amount of fraud and error in the government’s furlough scheme is far greater than expected.

It was found that an estimated 8.7 per cent of money distributed by the scheme - equivalent to £5.3bn - has been lost to fraud and error.

HMRC announced last month that an estimated £5.8bn had been lost to fraud across all its schemes supporting businesses during the pandemic. The schemes included the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme; Self-Employment Income Support Scheme and Eat Out to Help Out.

However, a government spokesperson stated that no payments claimed fraudulently have been written off - and that action is being taken to recover overpayments.

The spokesperson said:

“HMRC’s Taxpayer Protection Taskforce is expected to recover up to £1bn from fraudulent or incorrect payments. There are lessons to learn but we reject many of the statements made by the PAC.”

The taskforce, which is receiving £100m of funding from the government, will consist of 1,265 HMRC employees and their aim is to recoup £1bn of furlough support which has been wrongly claimed by businesses. 

Kate Palmer - HR Advice and Consultancy Director at Peninsula - blamed the changing furlough rules and requirements for the confusion caused to employers. 

She said that it would be “beneficial for employers to proactively check that they have stored the necessary information and seek to compile this where data is missing”. 

She added that employers could complete their own compliance check of their partaking in the furlough scheme and report any errors in their claims to HMRC - explaining:

“While some may be concerned to highlight a mistake, often this will avoid increased penalties if HMRC were to identify this first.”

Alan Lewis - Partner at Constantine Law - also stated that businesses should review how they have made claims under the scheme. 

He said:

“If mistakes have been made, get professional accountancy and legal advice and be prepared to make provision for payment of additional tax liabilities.”

He advised employers that they should keep all relevant records for six years and consult HMRC guidelines quickly - warning that if there has been a fraud, directors of a limited company can be held personally liable.

Andrew Bailey - Governor of the Bank of England - has suggested that employees should not ask for large pay increases, even as inflation rises.

Inflation - as measured by the consumer prices index (CPI) - is expected to rise above 7% this year, peaking at around 7.25% in April and averaging close to 6% in 2022. However, according to a survey, workers are receiving pay rises of below 5%, which means a fall of 2% in post-tax incomes. This would be the biggest fall in living standards since 1990 when records began.

In an interview, Andrew Bailey said that while acceptance of inflation rising faster than wages would be "painful", it was necessary as inflation could spiral if employers then passed on any higher wage costs to consumers.

In an interview with The BBC’s Today programme last week Mr Bailey said:

"I'm not saying 'don't give your staff a pay rise' - this is about the size of it."

In response, General Secretary of Unite, Sharon Graham said:

"Workers don't need lectures from the governor of the Bank of England on exercising pay restraint.”

And Gary Smith, General Secretary of GMB Trade Union stated:

“Telling the hard-working people who carried this country through the pandemic they don’t deserve a pay rise is outrageous. According to Mr Bailey, carers, NHS workers, refuse collectors, shop workers and more should just swallow a massive real-terms pay cut at the same time as many are having to choose between heating and eating.”

As from 1st April, free testing will come to an end for most people in England, resulting in business groups warning that the cost and responsibility of testing should not fall on employers.

The British Chambers of Commerce has said that the government ‘must not pass on public health decisions to businesses’ - and their Co-Executive Director, Claire Walker stated:

"Access to free testing is key to managing workplace sickness and maintaining consumer confidence. If the government is to remove this, companies must still be able to access tests on a cost-effective basis.”

Matthew Fell - a Policy Director at the Confederation of British Industry - is also of the opinion that free testing benefits businesses.

He said:

"While free testing cannot continue forever, there is a balance to be struck between confidence building and cost-cutting. Mass lateral flow testing has kept our economy open and firms continue to believe the economic benefits far outweigh the costs."

However, Kitty Ussher - Chief Economist at the Institute of Directors - commented that many business leaders will see the Prime Minister’s announcement as a sign that the worst of the pandemic is over - but they will still want to try to keep staff and customers safe.

She said:

"It is up to individual businesses to determine their own arrangements in the way that works for them. In this regard, keeping lateral flow tests free until 1st April - and longer for vulnerable groups - will be welcome."

In addition to the end of free testing, self-isolation rules will also end - as well as self-isolation payments for those on low incomes.

Despite people with Covid no longer being legally required to self-isolate, guidance will remain in place for those who test positive to stay at home and avoid contact with others for at least five full days – but self-isolation support payments of £500 for those on low incomes will no longer be available. Nor will it be a requirement for workers to tell their employer if they need to self-isolate.

Dan Shears - National Health and Safety Director for the GMB Union - criticised the Prime Minister's announcement as "nonsensical".

He stated:

"Asking people to exercise responsibility whilst taking away a key workplace provision for them to do that just shows how incompetent this government is.”

He added:

"The UK's poverty statutory sick pay rates, among the lowest in Europe, are a public health hazard as workers cannot afford to stay home when they are ill."

Howden Employee Benefits and Wellbeing are encouraging Human Resources (HR) experts to instigate a staff retention drive in 2022.

A recent survey by Howden, where 160 senior HR professionals were polled, showed that 81 per cent of employers said there were too few - at 68 per cent - of suitable applicants for vacancies, with 13 per cent saying they had no candidates at all.

Only 12 per cent of employers were not currently experiencing any recruitment challenges, but 36 per cent of employer respondents told Howden Employee Benefits & Wellbeing researchers that they expected a vacant position to remain unfilled for between three and six months - with 10 per cent experiencing wait times of up to nine months.

The HR respondents also said that the effects of the delays in new appointments were aggravated by the length of time it took a new worker to achieve their full level of output. Only 7 per cent of employers expect a new employee to reach their peak output in the first three months of employment; another 56 per cent of respondents suggest six to twelve months and 2 per cent consider that it would take a year or more for maximum output to be achieved.

Steve Herbert - Head of Benefits Strategy at Howden Employee Benefits & Wellbeing - said:

“A retention drive should be a high priority for many more businesses this year. The focus of the exercise should be to highlight the uncertainties of leaving for a new job elsewhere, whilst also strongly reminding employees of the benefits of continuing in their current employment.

In particular, we would encourage employers to really promote those important – but so often overlooked or poorly communicated – employee benefits offerings. Employer-funded benefits such as Group Life Assurance, Group Income Protection, and Group Private Medical Insurance are now even more important following a worldwide health crisis. 

It follows that workers may be far less inclined to change employers once they better understand that such a move may result in a break in the cover provided, or even the loss of these valuable protections altogether.”

Steve Herbert went on to suggest that retaining existing talent should be focussed upon by employers in 2022, but disappointingly the Howden survey revealed that only 22 per cent of employers were currently looking to implement any form of retention drive.

The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW) are hailing a ‘huge win’ after the High Court ruled against Tesco supermarket introducing ‘fire and hire’ tactics at their distribution centres.

The claim against Tesco was made on behalf of forty-two employees - represented by Thompson Solicitor’s - who faced changes to their terms of employment which would have meant a loss of pay.

The workers involved in the claim are employed at Tesco distribution centres in Daventry and Litchfield. They had previously been given an entitlement known as retained pay - which the company proposed to remove - by firing and then rehiring them.

Mrs Justice Ellenbogen stated that the “difficulty” of the case was not in the intention to dismiss and re-engage staff - but in the intention to terminate the original contract for the purpose of extinguishing or diminishing the right to retain pay.

In her decision, the judge said there was “….an implied term that Tesco will not exercise the right it would otherwise enjoy to give notice to terminate such a contract for the purposes of removing the right to retained pay.”

Neil Todd - of Thompsons Solicitors, who specialise in trade union law - said that the firm were:

“…proud to have represented a trade union in taking on corporate giants.”

He added:

“Tesco had made unequivocal commitments to its workers who had come into work throughout the lockdown, when it needed them most. The court agreed that, in those circumstances, it wasn’t then open to them to deploy fire and rehire tactics when it suited them.”

“This is a huge win for the workers and for USDAW. The practice of firing and rehiring staff on less favourable terms and conditions has been in widespread use over the last 18 months as employers try to erode rights that have been hard fought for and are there to protect some of the lowest paid in society.”

As a result of the ruling, experts have said it has given firms cause to carefully consider their planned changes to contracts. 

James Potts - Director of Legal Services at Peninsula - said:

“Even if they consult fully, have a justifiable business case and negotiate with employees, there still may be an underlying risk that employers will not be able to enforce changes to existing terms.”

Joanne McGuinness - national officer for USDAW - said:

“Companies are more frequently resorting to using fire and rehire tactics when they want to reduce employees’ terms and conditions of employment. The group faced having their wages cut as part of a change to their terms and conditions of employment by Tesco. Today’s High Court ruling will prevent the supermarket’s ‘fire and rehire’ practice in this case where it had sought to lay people off and re-employ them on new contracts, with less favourable terms and conditions, in England. The court noted that the forty-two workers had been guaranteed an entitlement to a specific payment labelled ‘retained pay’ to keep them within the business, which Tesco intended to remove by firing and then rehiring them. The judge held that there was an implied term in the workers’ contracts that the right to terminate employment could not be exercised if the aim was to remove a right to ‘retained pay’.”

Frances O’Grady - TUC General Secretary - commented:

“This is a resounding victory in the battle against fire and rehire - and, thanks to USDAW, a win for the union movement. Too many employers think they have free rein to threaten workers in secure jobs with the sack if they don’t accept a new contract on worse pay or conditions. Today’s judgment is an important win against an employer trying to use this scandalous practice to end a promised permanent benefit. But we can’t just rely on the courts to protect working people using current weak laws - we need action from government too. It’s time for ministers to finally deliver on their manifesto promise to protect and enhance workers’ rights - that means stopping fire and rehire without delay.”

Tesco have indicated that they are considering appealing the decision.

In the recent case of Pimlico Plumbers v Gary Smith at the Supreme Court, it was decided that Mr Smith - a heating engineer - is entitled to backdated holiday pay.

Gary Smith had worked on a self-employed basis for Pimlico Plumbers - a London leading maintenance and service company - between 2005 and 2011.

Despite being self-employed, Mr Smith was of the opinion that he should be paid for leave. The company disputed this, stating that Mr Smith was self-employed and that they were not liable for his holiday pay. This resulted in Mr Smith taking the company to an employment tribunal - followed by an employment appeal, both of which rejected his claim.

In finding for Mr Smith, the Supreme Court held him to be a worker for the purpose of the Working Time Regulations - and established a new guiding principle for courts. In reversing the employment tribunal and the employment appeal decisions, the Supreme Court also decided that he should receive compensation for all the unpaid leave he took during his six years of work for Pimlico Plumbers.

Experts say that this decision could also have an impact on other businesses whose workers were previously - and incorrectly - classed as self-employed.

Glenn Hayes - an Employment Partner at Irwin Mitchell - said:

“This is a significant ruling not just for Pimlico Plumbers but all businesses with workers who were previously classified as self-employed. As Mr Smith’s case shows the financial cost of missed holiday pay can be significant and I suspect many organisations will be deeply concerned by this ruling.”

Stephen Ratcliffe - Employment Partner at Baker McKenzie - stated that companies who engage self-employed workers face the risk of legacy claims on underpayment of holiday pay.

He stated:

“For those who engage people on a self-employed basis the risk of claims that the individual was actually a worker or an employee is compounded by the risk of similar legacy claims for holiday pay. Perhaps most significantly, the Government enacted a two-year backstop on these kinds of holiday pay claims, because of concerns over the potential multi-billion-pound bills which employers might otherwise face for many years of holiday pay. This decision opens up scope for a future case to challenge whether that backstop is lawful.

He went on to warn that employers need to take this case seriously, adding:

“With the combination of this case and the proposed focus of the Government’s Single Enforcement Body on holiday pay compliance, employers really need to focus on how they calculate holiday pay now, or else face what may be enormous holiday pay liabilities going back very many years.”

Dave Chaplin - CEO of tax compliance firm IR35 Shield - commented:

“It reinforces the need for firms to correctly classify their workers and provide associated rights that go with being a worker or employee. Moreover, the ruling appears to indicate that unpaid holiday pay will roll over each year, indefinitely, in instances where the employer has not taken the necessary steps to ensure the holiday is taken.”

Research from Direct Line - who provide business insurance and products and services for professional small and micro-businesses and sole traders - have found that 50 per cent of office, micro-business owners and sole traders who have changed their location or adopted hybrid working since the start of the pandemic, have witnessed a positive impact on their turnover.

The research has found that 25 per cent of office and professional micro-business owners and sole traders have changed their location or implemented hybrid working in an effort to reduce the risk of infection - as reported by 13 per cent; saving money on renting an office - as reported by 7 per cent and a confidence in the ability to work remotely - reported by 8 per cent.

The benefits found were:

Working from home benefit (Proportion of small/micro-business owners and sole traders)

• No travel costs (60 per cent)
• More flexible hours (58 per cent)
• Better work/life balance (57 per cent)
• Safer during Covid (9 52 per cent)
• No office space costs (45 per cent)
• Higher productivity (29 per cent)
• Claim expenses for using home (26 per cent)
• Easier childcare (11 per cent)

Apart from the rise in turnover, the change of location and hybrid working resulted in 61 per cent of business owners reporting that they had seen an improvement in their wellbeing and that they were happier at work.

Hybrid working is also influencing business owner plans with 83 per cent stating that in future they intend to have their home as their business registered address.

Some office and professional micro-business owners and sole traders, though, could see that there were some benefits to working in an office.

• 44 per cent felt that working in the office creates a clearer separation between professional and personal lives
• 33 per cent believe it provides better social connections
• 28 per cent feel that it leads to easier meetings and collaboration
• 22 per cent feel it boosts productivity

Only 7 per cent of business owners were concerned about hybrid working but were more worried about:

• The impact on customer demand - 44 per cent
• Tax increases - 33 per cent
• Maintaining/increasing growth - 27 per cent
• Increase in IT requirements - 21 per cent
• Brexit - 19 per cent
• Scaling up their business -12 per cent

Jane Morgan, Product Manager at Direct Line business insurance advised:

“Many office and professional micro-businesses and sole traders have seen positive benefits from flexible working, ranging from improved wellbeing to better turnover, which is great to see. This is influencing how they see their business operating in the future.

As these business owners plan ahead, they should consider the importance of having the right insurance arrangements in place, so that they are prepared to deal with the consequences of unforeseen developments and crises.”

A recent survey of 1,200 employees and employers by MetLife UK - a financial and investments company - has found that 50 per cent of employees would be prepared to sacrifice part of their salary in order to get more personalised employee benefits.

In addition, 74 per cent of workers stated that they would work harder for their employer if they received benefits that were tailored to their needs.

The study showed that 67 per cent of employers surveyed confirmed that their current employee benefits packages are changing to support the needs of their employees - whilst 64 per cent stated that they had been promoting benefits more both during and since the pandemic.

Just under forty per cent of workers stated that if they had intended to change jobs within the next 12 months, they could be persuaded to stay in their current work if their employer showed more care for their mental wellbeing - with 73 per cent saying they would work harder for an employer that cared about their wellbeing.

An important purpose of the report was to understand how workers priorities have changed since the pandemic - giving employers the tools with which to rebuild their employer/employee relationship.

Samantha Johnson - Policy Lead at the Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals - said that the needs of employees were now paramount, but she noted that individual benefit packages would come with ‘complexities in administration and compliance’.

She added:

“It is now central to a payroller's knowledge to understand how to ensure benefits in kind, salary sacrifice and expenses are implemented effectively and correctly.”   

A further significant influence for employees was financial protection - with pensions being ranked at 7.78 out of 10; income protection 7.27 out of 10 and critical illness 6.95 out of 10.

The least important benefits were found to be season ticket loans and gym memberships.

More than 60 per cent of employees would like the ability to form their benefits package together with their employer and 48 per cent stated that they were in discussion with their employer about benefits.

Charles Cotton - Senior Policy Adviser on performance and reward at the CIPD - stated that that employee benefits did not come in ‘one size fits all’. He suggested that employers who were looking to change their offers should start “conducting a review of what they currently offer and speaking to staff about what they value the most”.

He added:

“Taking time to invest not just in employee benefits but also in how you provide and communicate these benefits can improve employee retention, engagement and wellbeing so it’s well worth getting right.”

Adrian Matthews - EB Director at MetLife UK - commented:

“For years businesses have believed that higher pay and job security was the answer to a multitude of problems for employees and while they both remain vital, priorities have changed. Employees are now looking for a much more holistic approach to their benefits package.

Talk of a four-day week and flexible working had started to make their way into our corporate vocabulary before the pandemic but in practice they were largely left to smaller SMEs or start-ups to introduce. Fast forward to 2022 and we’ve seen a seismic shift in the way we work and where we do it. During the pandemic with social venues closed, the ‘softer’ benefits such as gym memberships and Friday drinks became obsolete and while many of us look forward to socialising after work with a colleague again, more functional benefits such as income protection are proving to be more worthwhile to employees going forward.

Ensuring that the benefit packages employers offer suits all members of the team is crucial to protect productivity and encourage loyalty for the long term. Our research found that more than two thirds of employees ‘will work harder for an employer who provides employee benefits that support my individual needs’. Employers must recognise how the needs of their employees will have changed in the past 12 months and work with them to find practical solutions that can be introduced quickly.”

Pay analysts XpertHR research - based on a sample of 100 pay awards - found that in the three months to January the median basic pay rise in the private sector was just 1 per cent, compared to 2 per cent in the three months to December. This is the lowest it has been since the summer of 2020 - when it was zero.

January normally accounts for just under a quarter of pay settlements each year, but activity was slow this year as employers remain concerned about the pandemic and uncertainty over Brexit.

The research found that the same pay was awarded to 18.1 per cent of employees, with just 2.4 per cent receiving a higher amount - and all the pay awards recorded by XpertHR in the three months to the end of January 2021 were in the private sector.

David Spencer - Professor of Economics and Political Economy at Leeds University Business School - said:

“A big factor holding back pay rises is the higher level of unemployment and more generally, job insecurity. Workers have little bargaining power to push for higher wages, while firms are unable or reluctant to raise wages due to weak sales and uncertainty about the length of the lockdown. If the economy bounces back later in the year, pressure might be felt for wage rises. But if, as seems likely, unemployment grows, then wages will remain sluggish.”

He also suggested that - compared to the high levels of unemployment linked to the coronavirus restrictions - for most employers, Brexit was a relatively minor factor. 

Sheila Attwood - XpertHR Pay and Benefits Editor - said:

"The fall in the headline rate of pay awards at the beginning of 2021 reflects the continuing uncertainty in which businesses are operating. The number of organisations choosing to freeze pay rather than make any increase is discouraging, but for many this decision would not have been taken lightly on the back of the effort many employees have put in over the past year."

Sarah Arnold - Senior Economist at the New Economics Foundation - stated that it was not surprising that employers are freezing wages in response to economic uncertainty.  

She added:

“This highlights the need for a bold and ambitious recovery plan from the government to help those hardest hit and keep the economy moving."

Frances O’Grady - General Secretary of the TUC - called on the government to do more to protect pay growth. 

She warned:

“Businesses need to know that furlough support will remain available until at least the end of the year, so they can have the confidence to press ahead with pay rises. And the chancellor must use the Budget to cancel the public sector pay freeze and make sure every key worker gets a pay rise.”

Even though wellbeing was not top of the priority list for businesses, recent research has shown that 63 per cent of employers have increased support for their employees in at least one of the areas of mental, financial, physical and social wellbeing.

At one time, health insurance and an employee assistance programme would have been all that was provided for employee wellbeing, but now it is accepted that much more is required to ensure that a negative effect on business is not impacted.

According to a recent report by HRZone, the average worker was absent for 14.6 per cent of their working hours - which represented a loss of 38 days per employee per year.

However, research has shown that 50 per cent of businesses have increased the communications around support available to staff; 44 per cent increased the time made available to directly help staff and 38 per cent extended support to reflect changes requested by employees.  A further 34 per cent increased engagement and utilisation of support that was already available, with 32 per cent increasing time to investigate resources to help staff. 

The research also showed that 32 per cent of employers extended the support being offered to include families of the employees, whilst 25 per cent provided new employee benefits to give extra support - and 24 per cent increased their investment directly to fund support.

HRZone suggest that the 25 per cent of employers who are providing new employee benefits and the 24 per cent who are funding support directly, should also consider whether their existing benefits are being under-utilised. Any shortfall in the health and wellbeing benefits should be regularly enhanced and updated. 

The Covid-19 pandemic has identified the importance of mental health, plus financial, physical and social well-being - in that order of importance - with 48 per cent of employers feeling more responsibility for the mental health of staff than prior to the pandemic.  This has resulted in 50 per cent of employers increasing the support that they offer staff expressly for mental health. 

The new Pensions Schemes Act - which received Royal Assent on 11th February 2021 - has given the Pensions Regulator powers to issue civil penalties of up to £1m.

Three new criminal offences for bosses who run pension schemes into the ground - or plunder pots for their own financial gain - are also part of the powers and employers could receive a seven-year prison sentence for plundering pension funds. 

In addition, the Bill - which is now an Act of Parliament - will tighten the rules on DB pension transfers, put in place statutory amendments and introduce new climate change risk management and reporting requirements.

In April 2016, British Home Stores went into administration with a pension’s deficit of more than £500,000 and in January 2018, Carillion entered compulsory liquidation with thirteen DB schemes in the UK with a deficit of £800 to £900 million. This triggered the parliamentary review into the way pension funds are regulated.

Guy Opperman - Minister for Pensions - said:

“This is an historic day for UK pensions. This act makes our pensions safer, better and greener, as we look to build back better from the pandemic.”

Experts, however, have raised fears that the new broadly drafted powers could have a bearing on normal business activity.

Joe Dabrowski - Deputy Director for Policy at the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association - said:

“At the very minimum, for employers it will mean thinking about any potential impact any actions might have on funds with more scrutiny. This means an additional layer of risk management and will lead to more documenting, processing and assessments.”

The new Pension Schemes Act will also allow employers to offer collective defined contribution schemes to members.  Their money will be pooled and invested collectively.

Joe Dabrowski commented:

“It gives employers the option if they’re thinking about alterations to funding arrangements, or if they wanted a step up from defined contribution, it gives them a new avenue to explore.”

Regarding the obligations introduced in the act for employers to look at their approach to climate change, Joe Dabrowski stated:

“This will lead to schemes having to articulate their approach much more to climate change, what they’re doing, how that’s making a difference.”

David Saunders - Partner at Sackers - stated that there are steps employers should now take in response to the act and added:

“It’s important employers have an internal governance process in place, so people aren’t inadvertently doing things to trigger these regulations without knowing it and are making sure the right people know about this. This includes keeping a paper trail to show discussions had and advice taken on pensions and to record measures taken to protect pension funds.”

Carolyn Saunders - Head of Pensions and long-term savings at Pinsent Masons  stated that the act provides a framework for employers and most of the detail will be set out in future regulations - adding:

“The first draft code of practice, published for consultation last year, was concerning for employers to the extent that the direction of travel seemed to be one that would be likely to lead to an increase in employer contributions.”

Draft guidance for consultation which will explain how it will exercise its new powers is expected to be drawn up by the Pensions Regulator.

Experts have warned that pre-lockdown working arrangements did not work. They suggest that businesses should be encouraged to invest in family-friendly policies.

Working Families - UK’s work-life balance charity - conducted a survey on working parents and carers to discover their experiences of flexible working before and during lockdown - and their goals for flexible working after the lockdown restrictions are lifted.

Only 65 per cent of parents and carers surveyed had the opportunity to work flexibly before the onset of the pandemic, but 84 per cent now have that facility - with 63 per cent working from home and 52 per cent enjoying flexible working hours.

Despite 61 per cent of the parents and carers surveyed saying that family life was more stressful or much more stressful during lockdown, 65 per cent said they would like their future work arrangements to be extremely or very flexible and 32 per cent said they would like them to be moderately or slightly flexible.

Only 1 per cent of parents and carers said they did not want any flexibility in future - but 13 per cent said they did not think they would have the choice of working flexibly despite wanting to. Half of respondents said their employers were unsympathetic and did not offer practical help with their childcare needs.

Of women currently working flexibly, 42 per cent said they needed to work this way to meet childcare commitments - in comparison to 28 per cent of men. 

Experts are asking employers to continue offering flexible working after the pandemic - but to also be aware of the differences of flexible and remote working, ensuring all parents and carers have access to secure jobs with guaranteed, predictable hours and access to all parental employment rights.

Chris Parke - Chief Executive of Talking Talent - advises employers to discuss with parents how they can support them to have a healthy work-life balance. He states that businesses must understand that remote working is not the same as flexible working and says:

“Being at home all day does not offer working parents any more flexibility when it comes to balancing jobs and home – in fact, it blurs the lines. Even though remote working does have its benefits, it has also triggered another conflict. Without the clear distinction of being at work and being at home, working parents have faced juggling the responsibilities of both, whilst being in the same environment. Any companies not offering the right support and company culture could find their high-talent individuals eschew them in favour of more forward-thinking firms.”

Mandy Garner - Managing Editor of WM People - stated that flexibility has been crucial throughout the pandemic and added:

“Flexible working has, for many years, been the number-one demand of working parents, and many women have left their jobs or found it difficult to get back into the workforce because of the lack of it.  It’s clear, however, that the demand for flexible working from parents – and many others – is there. It would be a pity if we emerged from Covid and returned to pre-lockdown ways of working, when they clearly don't work for a great many people."

Jane van Zyl - Chief Executive of Working Families - said:

“It’s becoming abundantly clear that there’s no going back to business as usual in a post-Covid working world. Employers have realised that many more jobs can be done flexibly than had ever been considered before and now is the time for these employers to invest in creating long-term strategies to support robust flexible and family-friendly policies and practices. An increase in high-quality, flexible jobs will not only help employers increase their productivity, talent attraction, and diversity - but it will also help the long-term economic recovery of the UK by opening the labour market to those who were previously shut out by inflexibility.”

Recently, the CIPD launched its campaign calling for the request for flexible working to become a right from day-one as their research showed that 46 per cent of employees do not have access to flexible working arrangements.

Peter Cheese - Chief Executive of the CIPD - said:

“We need a new understanding about what flexible working is and we need employers to embrace flexible working arrangements beyond home working, to give opportunity and choice to all. Employees may not always be able to change where they work, but they should have more choice and a say in when and how they work.”

New research by e-days - a global absence management software - highlights the various professions who are struggling with stress at work.

The research found that there was a 70 per cent rise in the number of stress-related absences among HR professionals in 2020 compared to the previous year, resulting in experts encouraging them to look after their own wellbeing whilst they are working.

The data, which was collected from 1,500 employers and analysed by e-days, showed that - and only being surpassed by workers in the healthcare sector and employees within Government and International Affairs - HR professionals took 0.39 days off on average per employee.

Rachel Suff - Employment Relations Adviser at the CIPD - said HR professionals had been at the centre of their organisations’ response to the pandemic.

She commented:

“Many months on, as the crisis continues, people professionals need to dig deep to help shore up organisational resilience and continue to support employee wellbeing. Given these high demands, people professionals must look after their personal wellbeing and resilience so that they can recognise any signs that day-to-day pressures – whether at home or at work, or both – are tipping into unmanageable stress.”

Overall, during 2020 stress-related absences around the UK saw a 64 per cent increase.  

The analysis also found that the amount of leave and holiday cancelled in 2020 almost doubled compared to 2019.  It also raised concerns about presenteeism and estimated that two-thirds of those working from home worked while sick at some time during the last year.

The Office for National Statistics also analysed their figures - which showed that whilst the number of fit notes issued by GPs dropped last year - the proportion issued for mental health reasons increased.

Dr Kate Bunyan - Chief Medical Officer, Doctor Care Anywhere - stated:

“Businesses need to ask themselves what they can do to support their employees through stress or sickness and ensure employees know that it is no longer a badge of honour to work whilst sick.

There should be a clear procedure in place to support employees and fast track them to the necessary support services before the situation worsens. Employees who choose to work when unwell are negatively impacting their own health, and in turn their colleagues and the business will suffer too. Without direction staff will be unsure as to how best proceed when sick and continue working. Especially during current circumstances business leaders need to be wise to this, and properly support their workforce.”

Steve Arnold - CEO of e-days - said:

“With HR leaders also struggling, we must recognise there is a perfect storm going on. What we do have within our control is looking after people when they do need to book absence but are working remotely. We have to build a company culture that shouts ‘absence matters’ and do away with the fear of appearing lazy or unable to cope. The truth is during this pandemic the majority are probably working more than ever, and HRs themselves need to call in support services to help.” 

A study of 5,842 UK workers by Totaljobs - conducted between 10 and 14 December 2020 - showed that 89 per cent are looking to change jobs in 2021, with 77 per cent having already started looking and a further 11 per cent saying they will start looking this month. Of these, 52 per cent are looking to relocate within the UK.  However, 24 per cent are also looking within the EU and 14 per cent are looking outside the EU altogether.

Of those polled, 66 per cent said they were worried about their career security and 26 per cent believed it was likely they would become unemployed this year.  As a result, 18 per cent are actively looking for work in a more secure industry, with 45 per cent saying that they did not think they would get a new role in the sector in which they are currently employed. Most people - 57 per cent - think it will take them up to three months to find a new job.

The survey also showed that 30 per cent of workers were able to obtain a new skill/qualification - but only 1 in 10 received training from their employer in 2020.

The workers are citing concerns over job security and career progression as reasons for changing their employment, but in addition, experts are warning that engagement is essential to staff feeling valued.

Daniella McGuigan - Partner at Ogletree Deakins International - commented that it was more crucial than ever for employers to engage with workers, at the same time acknowledging that remote working made this difficult:

She said:

“It’s very difficult for businesses to replicate training and development plans on a remote basis too – this is particularly so for junior employees or those who were new to the workplace when the pandemic began.  Career development is a real and genuine concern going forward and is likely to be felt far beyond the lifting of restrictions.  Perhaps now, more than ever, employee engagement is essential to navigate a way through the current situation and ensure that, wherever possible, people come out the other side of this feeling valued and appreciated.”

Claire McCartney - Senior Resourcing and Inclusion Adviser at the CIPD stated:

“Organisations must have a long-term and strategic approach and ensure the needs of the business and external landscape are considered. This will also help to ensure training is not seen as an easy target for cost-cutting measures.”

She added:

“HR teams have an important role to play in highlighting the importance of training in helping people to adapt, learn and improve during times of economic uncertainty."

Jon Wilson - CEO of Totaljobs - stated:

“2020 was a tough year for the jobs market, and while we’ve seen increased activity on Totaljobs from businesses actively recruiting, for those looking for work, the challenge of having to stand out from the crowd remains. That’s why it’s such a positive sign that we’re seeing so many people picking up extra skills and qualifications during lockdown. This shows a willingness to keep their progression on track or learn new, transferable skills required to be employable in a different industry. Over the past year, we’ve seen workers setting new standards for their employment conditions. The rise of remote working has seen candidates move around the country or even relocate outside the UK to find work. The coming months will reveal how much more of an impact the pandemic and Brexit will have on people’s attitudes towards their jobs, their location and their employment terms. While the full impact of the pandemic will remain unclear for the time being, what we do know is that workers have experienced a huge strain on their working lives during 2020. It is perhaps no surprise that they will be seeking a fresh start and new opportunities in the months to come.”

A new survey conducted by Aetna International has revealed that 63 per cent of HR directors believe employers now have more responsibility for their employees’ mental and physical health beyond the workplace.  The research shows that these two-thirds of HR directors now feel more responsibility - particularly for mental health - as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The survey was undertaken by over 4,000 office workers - many of whom were working remotely - and 1,000 HR directors from the UK, US, Singapore and the UAE, with the results implying that business organisations have a greater understanding of employee health concerns than prior to the pandemic.  Fifty-four per cent of HR directors state that their company has improved the provision of mental health support - and has provided benefits such as flexible working.

Despite this, there is a clear difference between the views of HR and employees towards these provisions, as whilst 40 per cent of HR directors saw the quality and health benefits offered as good, this was not endorsed by the employees - with only 23 per cent of employees who work from home and 32 per cent of employees still working in an office, in agreement.

However, this was an improvement compared to pre-Covid 19, when only 25 per cent of employees felt they were being offered good support for mental health conditions.  Over half of UK workers felt that their employer should be spending more on health and benefits whilst only 36 per cent of HR directors felt the same.

Twenty-one per cent of employees stated that the health support they receive has not advanced since the pandemic, showing that employers may not be mindful of the needs of the employees. Prior to the pandemic, 93 per cent of employees stated that good physical health support was a reason for remaining at the company - but now 41 per cent cited good annual leave entitlement as a greater attraction, followed by 35 per cent wanting the ability to work from home.

Damian Lenihan - Executive Director for Europe at Aetna International - stated:

“It’s encouraging to see that employers have recognised the increasing importance of robust health and well-being support, particularly when it comes to benefits and interventions designed to support mental health and well-being. There’s no doubt the pandemic has taken a toll on people’s mental and emotional resilience; this year, businesses everywhere need to consider their role in addressing this burden.”

He continued:

“Whilst it’s positive to see that the perceptions of employers are now more aligned with the experiences of their employees, our research suggests there is still more to do to ensure health benefits and HR strategies are not only fit for purpose today, but also for the future. The views of employers and their employees remain polarised when it comes to the steps businesses need to take to strengthen workplace well-being provisions.  Listening to employees will be absolutely crucial for businesses over the next few months. For a lot of people, health and lifestyle pressures have intensified dramatically as a result of the pandemic, something that businesses cannot afford to ignore. If they haven’t already, businesses must act and respond to these challenges or risk alienating a workforce that is already under strain.”

A recent survey was conducted by Soapbox - a London-based creative communications agency - of 200+ managers from across over 30 industries and with collectively over 1280 years of management experience. The survey was to learn how they conduct one-on-one meetings with their teams. 

Of the managers surveyed, 94 per cent stated that they carried out one-on-ones and of the remaining 6 per cent, most stated that the reason they did not do so was lack of time.

Nearly half the managers who held one-on-one meetings reported that the agenda is a shared responsibility with the team members. Only 23 per cent discuss alignment to company mission, but 75 per cent reported discussing growth and development.

About one in two managers have one-on-one meetings on a weekly basis - helping to build rapport, trust and continuous feedback with the employees.

When questioned about the goal of one-on-one meetings, 70 per cent state it is to understand and eliminate roadblocks; 61 per cent stated it is to ensure employees are engaged and happy - and 53 per cent is to enquire how specific projects are coming along.

An overwhelming 68 per cent of managers said that juggling their responsibilities - along with managing a team - is their biggest challenge as a people leader. The next challenge specified was hitting team goals - referred to by 14 per cent of managers. This was followed by over 10 per cent stating that getting their team to collaborate with one another was a test and 4 per cent cited retaining employees.

Brennan McEachran - CEO and Co-Founder - SoapBox, said:

“Most managers start their people leadership journeys with zero training, zero coaching, zero tools and zero experience. They're left to their own devices to figure out an entirely new set of skills: leading others. After 10 years in the management space, we’ve learned that the biggest opportunity a manager has to impact the performance and engagement of an employee is during one-on-one meetings. We've also learned that for many managers, this time is often disorganized and unproductive. But how can we help a group of under-serviced super-powerful people in today's workplace level-up their one-on-ones? “

He added:

“We believe the findings in this report are extremely important for new and existing managers looking to find their groove. We’re aiming to understand the state of management through the one-on-one lens and hope that as a result, managers reading this can build on the patterns that have proven successful for others."

A decision has been made by a Manchester Employment Tribunal that to deny an experienced solicitor a job because he was considered too expensive, amounted to age discrimination.

Mr Raymond Levy was 57 years old and had been a practising solicitor since 1985 - specialising in commercial property law - when, on 5th March 2018 he answered an advert placed by McHale Legal Limited for a commercial property role requiring a solicitor with at least five years’ post-qualification experience (PQE).

Mr Levy - who had just been made redundant from his previous job - was asked by the senior solicitor specialising in commercial property law at McHale Legal, Ms Maria Udalova-Surkova, to send his CV and an interview was arranged for 7th March 2018.

At the interview, Ms Udalova-Surkova told Mr Levy that the role was required to be filled fairly urgently as a senior associate was leaving the firm and work was ‘piling up’ as new instructions came in.

Mr Levy was asked what salary he was looking for and due to the role being based in Manchester - and being aware that the salary would be less than the £60,000 he would expect to be paid in London - he suggested that he could work for £50,000 for the first three months. He also offered to work on a self-employed consultancy basis.

Ms Udalova-Surkova then suggested a start date of the following Monday 12th March - but told Mr Levy that the decision was dependent on the result of a meeting between the heads of departments. 

The following day - 8th March - Ms Udalova-Surkova had a meeting with the other department heads to discuss the role. The notes from this meeting implied that Mr Levy was asking for a salary of £50,000-£60,000. This was an overstatement of what he had actually said he was looking for - and resulted in the suggestion that Mr Levy was ‘expensive’ and ‘doesn’t cover all our needs’.

On 9th March, Ms Udalova-Surkova emailed Andrew McHale - Senior Associate - saying, “Just to confirm, we are not interested in Raymond Levy, right?”. The tribunal heard that Mr McHale’s reply was, “Yep.” 

On 12th March, Mr Levy received an email which stated that his application had not been successful saying, “I regret to inform you that at this stage we would not require your services as we have decided to go for a 3-5 PQE solicitor to train to our specific requirements.”

The Tribunal felt McHale Limited - despite its ‘clumsily-worded’ commitment in the handbook to ‘actively support … discrimination legislation’ - had little understanding and awareness of discrimination legislation. The employment judge Sharon Lanridge said:

“The lack of formal training in diversity and equality issues was apparent from the respondent’s complacency, and its aggressive defence of this claim was wholly at odds with its self-imposed commitment in the handbook to take such complaints seriously. The continued threats to report the claimant to the SRA were revealing of an employer which is impervious to the possibility that it may have discriminated, even without appreciating that it had done so.

We did not consider that the respondent’s decision was a proportionate means of achieving any legitimate aim, not least because it was clear from the context that the claimant was flexible about salary and the duration of the job, offering also to work on a self-employed basis, yet he was not even invited to negotiate. While we may accept that it is legitimate to appoint a solicitor whose experience and salary expectations match the commercial needs of the firm… the refusal to offer the claimant the job in this case was quite disproportionate. Rather than keep an open mind and negotiate terms with the claimant, the respondent instead deprived him of an opportunity to obtain work at a time when he was unemployed and receptive to discussing the salary level.”

The Tribunal ruled that ‘expensive’ was in fact ‘synonymous with his being an experienced and older solicitor’, and that the firm changed the job requirements to suit a more junior solicitor after it had deemed Mr Levy unsuitable.

McHale Legal Limited is to appeal.

Kate Palmer - Associate Director of advisory at Peninsula - commented that this case showed how the particular wording of job advertisements may place individuals of a certain age at a disadvantage - resulting in employers falling foul of equality laws. She stated:

“As seen here, asking for someone with three-to-five years’ PQE is highly likely to only apply to younger applicants, meaning older candidates would automatically miss out on this opportunity because of their age despite meeting the requirements of the role. The fact that the employers in this case could not justify this requirement, providing contradictory explanations concerning the cost of the claimant despite his being willing to negotiate a lower salary with them, was one of the key reasons his claim succeeded.”

According to global research undertaken by the Hackett Group consultancy, over commitment represents the ‘greatest transformation hurdle’ for HR management.

In addition, the Hackett Group’s HR Key Issues research - based on data from 200 global executives - illustrated that the most critical development area for HR was organisational culture. The research also found that talent management and development is a high priority.

Tony DiRomualdo - Senior Research Director for The Hackett Group - said:

“Culture has always been in the top 10, but the move to the number-one spot in terms of both top issues and critical development areas is unprecedented and disconcerting. It speaks to the challenges that both the enterprise and HR have had in coping with the impact of digital business. Even if they’re making progress on the technology front, legacy organisational culture is holding the organisation back from achieving its full potential. HR executives are feeling the pressure to help the business move faster, to innovate, take risks and to be more experimental.”

Franco Girimonte - The Hackett Group Associate Principal - stated:

“We are seeing more and more organisations invest in their talent management processes such as recruiting websites, applicant tracking and assessments, candidate and employee experience, engagement tracking and inner mobility.”

He added:

“Achieving a proper balance - while transforming the function - is critical. As HR technology changes are made, it’s important that they also look at things like their operating model, skill sets, alignment of responsibilities and more. Ignoring this will hurt them in the long run.”

The research found that in the adoption and effectiveness levels for various technologies, HR is more aggressive than other business functions in adopting cloud-based systems, expecting to see a 26 per cent growth - but nearly 60 per cent of respondents were found to still rely on legacy on-premise systems, which frequently fall short of expectations.

Although less than 10 per cent of HR functions had completed large-scale deployments, robotic process automation met respondents’ expectations 83 per cent of the time, whilst 8 per cent said it exceeded expectations and 8 per cent said it fell short.

With regard to digital skills, 76 per cent of respondents said they had either large or very large skill gaps in analytics and modelling – with 67 per cent saying the same about ‘data savviness’.

Surveys and focus groups were thought to be the most effective practices to improve the employee experience by 23 per cent of the respondents.

Franco Girimonte stated:

“It’s an uphill battle for HR to improve its ability to support enterprise objectives while moving forward with their own functional improvement agenda. The challenges identified in our research are too numerous to be overcome in a single year. Instead, HR leaders should aim to make measurable improvements in capabilities that address top business priorities such as enterprise digital transformation, culture and skills gaps. This will increase HR’s value contribution to the business and help it to secure further support from top leaders for HR transformation efforts.”

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) is assessing whether drones could help in search and rescue missions across the UK. A new project is investigating if the devices could also boost missions by visiting rescue sites ahead of air, sea or land-based recovery teams.

This would provide a full picture of the situation and develop the appropriate response.

The MCA will assess the use of drones for regular and routine flights and demonstration flights will be carried out using several unmanned aerial system drones. Last year, the MCA's civilian search and rescue helicopters responded to an average of seven missions a day, saving more than 1,600 people. Overall, the MCA co-ordinated more than 22,000 incidents and rescued more than 7,000 people across the year

After angrily storming out of a meeting - making a comment appearing to resign his position - a managing director has won his claim of unfair dismissal against a company he founded in 1990.

In December, the Employment Tribunal hearing the claim of Mr Robert S Rae v Wellhead Electrical Supplies Ltd were told that Mr Rae - as he left the meeting about employee’s pay - told his fellow directors, Mr Charles Ogg (Finance Director/Company Secretary) and Mr Greg Rastall, that he would not be back.

The tribunal heard that from early 2019, company employees repeatedly asked Mr Rae about salary increases as there had not been any since 2014, due to a downturn in business. As he was very much in favour of awarding increases - to ensure that valued members of staff were retained - he raised the issue on a number of occasions with his fellow directors, in particular Mr Ogg, the Finance Director.

On 7 March 2019, at a board meeting, a pay rise was agreed and Mr Rae was under the impression that - in addition to a general pay increase - Mr Rae’s son and a member of his sales team would be given a higher pay rise.

The tribunal were told that, in previous informal discussions, Mr Rae had threatened to resign if the proposed pay increases did not go through.

After the pay rise agreement, Mr Rae informed the two employees about their expected increase, but this was not reflected in their next pay cheques. Mr Rae was devastated and embarrassed by this.  

On 21 March, Mr Rae followed up the matter with Mr Ogg and, on asking Mr Ogg if the higher pay increase had gone through he was told that it had not. The tribunal heard that Mr Rae then threw his keys on Mr Ogg’s desk and shouted, “I told you what was going to happen. I won’t be back.” Mr Ogg reported that Mr Rae also said, “I resign” - which was disputed by Mr Rae. However, Mr Rae did agree that he stated to Mr Rastall, “I think I have just resigned” or words to that effect.

Two hours later, an emergency board meeting was held and it was agreed to accept Mr Rae’s resignation. Minutes were taken at the meeting - which stated, “Mr Rae’s actions were a direct result of three previous threats to resign should his son Mark and assistant Yvonne not be given payroll increases out with the current salary scale structure.”

When cross-examined about this, Mr Ogg agreed that there had only been two other occasions and that the word ‘resignation’ had not been used but that what Mr Rae had stated amounted to that. The minutes also recorded that both the other directors agreed to accept Mr Rae’s remarks as his resignation, due to his hostile attitude at the last board meeting.

The following day, Mr Rae telephoned the company to say that he was going to the doctor that day as he was suffering from stress and would return when he was better. He spoke to Mr Rastall who, Mr Rae alleged swore at him – which the employment judge accepted because Mr Rastall had told the tribunal that he was “quite happy with Rab resigning”. The judge had already put on record that Mr Rae gave his evidence at the tribunal “in a measured, consistent and convincing manner”, presenting as credible and reliable.

Mr Rae saw a doctor that day and was signed off work until 5 April, but he did not return to work. Mr Rastall did not reply to Mr Rae’s message, sending him a letter the same day saying that the company had accepted his resignation.

When Mr Rae disputed this, he received another letter telling him he was no longer a director at Wellhead and warned him not to interfere with any future company business or communicate with any staff members. He then received his P45.  

The tribunal accepted that on the day Mr Rae walked out, his actions “amounted to an apparently unambiguous resignation” but in the circumstances in which it had happened, the company should have given more thought before ending Mr Rae’s employment. They stated that “it would be normal practice for someone in a senior position to resign by giving written notice”. It was also noted that when a former director of Wellhead resigned in 2011, he was allocated a ‘cooling off’ period.

The tribunal stated that “the directors were blinkered by an overwhelming desire to ensure that the claimant would not be allowed to return to work, in any circumstances, and that no explanation whatsoever from him for his conduct - even though it was unprecedented in some thirty years - would be accepted.”

Paul Holcroft - associate director at Croner - commented:

“Tempers can flare in the workplace, and it is advisable in these circumstances to give the employee time to calm down, contact them later, and get them to confirm in writing that they do wish to resign.”

Thalis Vlachos - employment law partner at Gunnercooke - said:

“The danger point for the employer is that if they then do not allow that person to retract their resignation, then they've followed no procedure. It's then considered a dismissal and they then face an employment tribunal claim, as in this case.”

No settlement has yet been agreed.

An online poll of 2,700 respondents aged 16+ in work in Great Britain was conducted by the TUC and research company GQR. It found that 18 per cent of UK workers have been ordered not to discuss their earnings with colleagues.

In addition, it was found that half of the workers polled are not aware of the salaries earned by senior management in their organisations; more than half, i.e. 53 per cent of workers, are not given information about their co-workers pay and only 18 per cent reported that their workplace has a transparent pay policy, where salary details are available to everyone through an official source.

The TUC is calling for a ban on pay secrecy - or gagging clauses - which prevent the workers from challenging unfair pay, discrimination and excessive top-to-bottom pay ratios.

Frances O’Grady - TUC General Secretary - said:

“Pay secrecy clauses are a get out of jail free card for bad bosses. They stop workers from challenging unfair pay, allow top executives to hoard profits and encourage discrimination against women and disabled people. Talking about pay can feel a bit uncomfortable, but more openness about wages is essential to building fairer workplaces.”

The TUC is calling on the government to ban secrecy clauses outright - allowing everyone to discuss their pay and other work benefits and to give stronger union rights in order that unions can ensure transparent and fair processes for setting pay rates.

Duncan Brown, head of HR consultancy at the Institute of Employment Studies, stated that some protection for workers - rendering pay secrecy clauses enforceable if the employer is trying to prevent a relevant pay disclosure - is already provided by the Equality Act. He stated:

“People will only trust their pay is fair if they understand and can see how it is determined and how their pay relates to that of others.”

However, Emma Bartlett - Partner at Charles Russell Speechlys - said that banning secrecy clauses alone would not improve pay transparency. She added:

“Placing the onus on an individual worker to root out discrimination is not an effective way of reducing discriminatory pay decisions. As demonstrated by the compulsory gender pay gap reporting, the key would have to be pushing companies to publish meaningful data on levels of pay in certain roles, so that a proper analysis can be undertaken.”

Kate Palmer - Associate Director of advisory at Peninsula Business Services - said that banning conversations on differences in wages can help prevent arguments or disputes arising at work, but she also warned that employers would have nothing to fear from staff discussing salaries if they can show the reasoning behind why one worker is paid more than another.

Prospects for HR roles are looking healthy - a recent Glassdoor report has ranked the role of HR Manager among the top ten most desirable roles in the UK, with a high rating for job satisfaction.

However, it was pointed out that HR specialists cannot afford to stand still if they want to remain current and marketable to employers. During a recent CIPD careers event, it was suggested that they focus on transferable skills, getting experience of different disciplines - even if it is just as a short term project - and find alternative ways to gain knowledge.

Recently speaking at a CIPD careers event, Ruth Stuart - Head of Strategy Development - remarked that it is impossible to predict accurately what HR roles will look like, going forward.   She stated that she did not think they needed to worry too much regarding the greatly talked about advance of the robots - artificial Intelligence will undoubtedly make a big difference to the way tasks and processes are managed - but the future of HR will still be human.

She highlighted the five key skills that will stand HR people in good stead for the future:

Remaining calm and clear headed and making the right decision for the situation at hand is a key skill. HR managers frequently have to cope with awkward situations and there are no easy answers.

Commercial awareness is a competence that HR is often unfairly accused of lacking. The most successful will have a clear understanding of their organisation’s business model and the risks and reputational challenges it faces – together with an in-depth knowledge of the way the business creates value.

A World Economic Forum report has dubbed critical thinking as one of the most important skills for the future world of work and HR will require the ability and the courage to question and challenge - where necessary - decisions that are being made within the business.

Digital literacy is one area where HR professionals are not alone in acknowledging they need to raise their game. They also need to learn how to exploit data to support better decision making within the business on everything from recruitment and workforce planning to e-learning and employee engagement.

Lastly, Ruth Stuart stated that in the last year alone everything from environmental, whistle blowing and money laundering scandals had been reported. HR needs to develop the skills to deal with inappropriate behaviour of all kinds and employees should be able to speak out without fear of negative consequences.

It is suggested that career success in the future will depend on HR practitioners being principles-led, evidence-based and outcomes driven.

In January Republican Rosa DeLauro introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act, a measure intended to strengthen equal pay protections for women.

The landmark Equal Pay Act of 1963 had made it illegal for employers to pay unequal wages to men and women who perform substantially equal work, but these laws have not closed the persistent gap between men’s and women’s wages.

Women who work full time are paid, on average, only 80 per cent of every dollar paid to men. This happens in every state - regardless of geography, occupation, education or work patterns.

The proposed Paycheck Fairness Act would ban employers nationwide from asking job applicants about their salary history and employers would be required to prove that any pay gaps between men and women are legitimately job-related.

With regard to employees, the Paycheck Fairness Act would protect against retaliation for discussing salaries with colleagues and prohibit employers from screening job applicants based on their salary history - or for requiring salary history during the interview process.

In addition, it would provide plaintiffs who file sex-based wage discrimination claims under the Equal Pay Act, with the same remedies as are available to plaintiffs who file race or ethnicity based wage discrimination claims under the Civil Rights Act; remove obstacles in the Equal Pay Act to facilitate plaintiffs’ participation in class action lawsuits that challenge systemic pay discrimination and create a negotiation skills training program for women and girls.

On February 13th during a joint hearing of two U.S. House of Representatives Education and Labor subcommittees, Republican Suzanne Bonamici, D-Ore pointed out that equal pay for equal work - regardless of sex - is a fundamental concept that has been a part of the law for more than half a century, but women still face barriers to equal pay.

She went on to say that it is difficult to prove pay discrimination, especially when businesses keep information about wages and raises a secret - and that discriminatory pay practices are keeping some women in poverty.

Republican Bradley Byrne, R-Ala, whilst agreeing that women deserve equal pay for equal work, said that the Paycheck Fairness Act offers no new protections against pay discrimination. He added that it also imposes an inflexible mandate on employers that strictly limits their communications with employees during the hiring process, but that it would be a "cash cow" for the attorneys of plaintiffs' by making it easier to sue employers - resulting in long legal battles for the women who bring claims.

Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York said that the bill would force employers to make salaries transparent and stop them from asking about pay history.

She said,

"It is time that we pay people what they are worth and not how little they are desperate enough to accept. And that has nothing to do with their history - it has everything to do with what they are worth today”.

On 5th February 2019, an event was jointly held by the CIPD and the High Pay Centre, where an expert panel suggested that HR should play a more powerful role on remuneration committees (RemCo).

The event was set up to accompany the recent RemCo Reform report from the CIPD. This report made a case for RemCos to grow into broader people and culture committees, overseeing pay and setting it in the context of genuine performance and business value.

Speakers argued for a greater voice for HR professionals on the committees that set pay strategies, with a view to curbing soaring pay among senior executives.

At the heart of the discussion was the news that the average FTSE 100 CEO is now paid £3.92m a year - a figure which has risen 11% in the past 12 months - and is way above the increase enjoyed by the UK workforce as a whole.

Luke Hildyard - Executive Director of the High Pay Centre - stated that there were far more people from marketing backgrounds than HR professionals serving on remuneration committees.

He added;

“When you think about the insights that people from HR could bring in terms of reward and motivation...that seems to be remiss. The HR perspective is missing in RemCos.”

Shadow Business Secretary - Rebecca Long-Bailey - told delegates;

“Time and again, we hear about record-breaking pay packets for so-called fat cat bosses. We have the slowest wage growth among G20 countries, but that hasn’t been the case for executive pay at the very top and that’s not fair. The prime minister has said it’s not anti-business to suggest big business needs to change on remuneration. For once, I agree with her.”

Iain Wright - Director of Corporate and Regional Engagement at accounting body ICAEW and former Chair of the parliamentary business select committee - said executive pay had become, “.......like a virility symbol, a statement of a company’s ambition”.

He added:

“........how much do we need to be paying to attract the best, while also being mindful of our responsibility to the company, to other staff and to society in general?”

Long-term incentive plans came in for heavy criticism with Sandy Pepper - Professor of Management Practice at the London School of Economics - stating that there was evidence that long-term incentive plans were a major factor in inflating executive pay. He said the cost of a long-term incentive plan was greater than the value placed on it by a senior executive - which was the opposite of what companies were trying to do.

He added:

“They are value destroyers.”

Louise Fisher - Chair of the CIPD and member of its remuneration committee - writes that HR data and insights are key to effective RemCo practice, and that means committees need high quality HR leaders to execute their responsibilities.

KMPG LLP recently conducted a survey of over 2,000 professional women with full time white-collar jobs in the U.S. This demonstrated that - whilst women are willing to take on what they consider small risks such as a new project or pitching an idea - they are less inclined to engage in bigger risk taking such as asking for a higher salary or moving for a job.

The survey showed that 69 per cent of women will take on a small risk to further their career and 43 per cent will take on bigger risks where these are associated with career advancement. However, as women become more experienced and attain more self-confidence, their inclination to take risks declines - with 45 percent of women with less than five years of experience open to taking big career risks - and only 37 percent of women with 15 or more years of experience willing to do so. 

Michele Meyer-Shipp - Chief Diversity Officer at KPMG, Newark NJ - said:

“When it comes to their careers, many women find themselves in a bit of a bind. They’re trying to preserve their gains, so instead of playing to win, they’re often playing not to lose – whether hesitating to take perceived big risks, or feeling the need to take outsized chances.”

More than half - 55 per cent of the respondents to the survey - acknowledged that those who take career risks progress more quickly than those who do not, thereby developing new skills and earning the respect of colleagues. According to 40 per cent of those surveyed, the biggest incentive is the opportunity to make more money, although only 35 per cent said they were confident about requesting a higher salary from their employer.

Only 8 percent of respondents said that risk taking has been most valuable in their professional success, citing other task-oriented factors over leadership traits – such as, 73 per cent stated working hard; 45 per cent said being detail oriented and 45 percent said organized. Attributes such as being strong-willed, creative or a good leader were low on the list of accomplishments and only 43 percent say they have talked about what they have attained over the past three years.

Doug Sundheim - author of Taking Smart Risks When the Stakes Are High - is of the opinion that women are risk takers but are not seen that way as the risks are defined in physical and financial terms.

He wrote in Harvard Business Review:

"Those terms don't point to risks like standing up for what's right in the face of opposition, or taking the ethical path when there's pressure to stray - important risks that I've found women are particularly strong at taking." 

In the survey, the small risks that KPMG asked women if they were confident in taking included voicing a point of view or opinion - even if it conflicts with others; taking action to raise their visibility - such as attending a networking event and offering to mentor or sponsor someone they did not know well. The big risks were cited as requesting a more flexible or accommodating working situation; questioning the status quo and re-entering the workforce if planning to leave it for a while.

Although women are less confident about requesting a salary increase, the study found that money is the top motivation for taking a career risk and a supervisor who encourages employees to try new things also prompts risk taking.

Respondents stated that they would like to see more encouragement and support from their organizations for risks taken and the failures that may result.

Michele Meyer-Shipp remarked:

“Women may benefit by taking more risks over the course of their careers, but they can’t go it alone. Organizations must provide supportive structures including inclusive and diverse workplaces, professional development, mentorship and sponsorship opportunities, all of which set up women to achieve, thrive and reach the highest levels.”

New research from Paychex - a leading provider of integrated human capital management solutions - went directly to employees, not employers, to gain their perspective on what shapes an organization.

This research could be useful for any HR professional who wonders what the employees are thinking about benefits, retirement, pay equity, ghosting, HR technology and corporate social responsibility, etc. The survey was conducted on 750 full-time employees working in companies with 1,000 workers or fewer across the United States.

Maureen Lally - Paychex Vice President of Marketing - said:

"As businesses shift into the future of work, it's as important as ever to understand employees' workplace expectations, challenges, and requirements. While employers can implement changes from the top, employees ultimately define what the American workplace looks like. Their habits, preferences, and behaviors are what shape company culture.”

On the most complicated aspect of making annual benefit elections, of those surveyed 29 per cent said that it was keeping up with plan changes and 28 per cent stated attempting to envisage personal and family needs. Evaluating all of the providers and plan options was also cited by 28 per cent of the respondents - with 33 per cent of women stating that trying to predict personal and family needs when making benefits selections is the number one most complicated. For men, however, that appeared at 24 per cent - ranking third.  

With regard to retirement savings, 51 per cent of employees feel confident in their levels but 25 per cent added the qualification that their confidence is dependent on Social Security remaining intact. As employees get older - those aged 50-65 years - their confidence in their retirement savings increases to 58 percent.

Regardless of gender, 48 per cent of employees surveyed say that at least once during their career, they have expressed verbal or written concern to their current employer that their rate of pay was not equitable to another employee with a similar role and responsibilities.  

Referring to the auditing of employee pay for gender equity, 77 per cent of men and 74 per cent of women are confident that their employer is acting on this.

Of the employees surveyed, 71 per cent state that they expect their employers to give them a high level of employee self service - to enable them to complete HR tasks (such as update addresses, fill out tax forms, etc.) independently. Of these employees, 85 per cent expect that the self-service applications will be similar to the consumer apps used in their personal lives.

When questioned about leaving a current job or not reporting for a new job without informing the employer, 27 per cent of employees admitted that they had done so. In the age group 18 - 34 years, 33 per cent stated that they had ‘ghosted’; 30 per cent in the 35 - 49 years group and only 7 per cent in the 50 - 65 years of age group.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) - caring about the impact the business and its employees have on things like the environment and the well-being of the local community or region - is extremely important to all employees, regardless of their age, with the lowest percentage being 90 per cent.

Laurie Zaucha - Paychex Vice President of HR and Organizational Development - stated:

"CSR is an important driver in attracting and retaining talent for companies today. More than ever before, candidates research prospective employers before applying and are looking for organizations whose values align with theirs."

The latest research from Tempo - an end to end hiring platform that uses video, intelligent matching and automation to connect great candidates with temporary and permanent jobs - showed that three in ten millennial workers have, so far, had five or more different jobs in their careers.

More than 2,000 UK employees took part in the poll and it was found that 28% of those between 18 and 34 years of age had already worked at more than five jobs, with the average millennial worker having had 3.4 different jobs. Those in the over 55 years of age bracket had been employed in 5.9 jobs.

The region of Northern Ireland showed that 16% of respondents reported having had ten jobs or more - making that the area where the most job moves took place.

The survey also reveals that millennial workers are striving to progress in their career paths and not just seeking new jobs - with 52% stating that they plan to move within the next two years and 34% hoping to move within the next year. Tempo’s research showed that 64% of under-35 year old workers wish to change sectors - against 39% of 35 - 55 years old workers.

The reasons cited for changing to other jobs was shown to be different according to sexes and generations, with 83% of over 55 years old workers stating salary as one of their top three incentives for changing roles. However, of the millennial workers surveyed, only 67% gave this as one of their top reasons.

Where the sexes were concerned, 46% of women cited flexible working as a priority against 29% of men - 23% of whom gave career progression as important against 15% of women.

Ben Chatfield - CEO and Co-Founder at Tempo - remarked:

“Employers have found it notoriously difficult to understand millennials and their outlook on work. As a consequence, they have struggled to meet their needs. This generation has a different appetite for learning and self-improvement. They don’t see a portfolio career as “job hopping” as older generations might. Instead, change an opportunity to develop key skills and try something new.”

He added:

“There are multiple advantages to have a diverse job background. People who embrace variety are more adaptable, likely to have a range of soft skills, and a wider pool of professional contacts. Employers must realise the opportunity they present and do more to attract them. This means creating a recruitment system that supports a flexible employment structure and enables them to hire at speed.

Tech Cities Job Watch – who provide employers with an indicator of hiring, demand and salaries for IT jobs within the UK tech sector – have published their latest report showing that demand for new IT security skills has dropped by 5% in the past year – from the fourth quarter of 2016 to the fourth quarter of 2017.

The report shows that there was a 24% year-on-year increase in the demand for contractors but that this was overshadowed during the same period by a 10% decrease in demand for the larger market of permanent IT security staff.  However, salaries increased by 4% - the average salary for an IT security role standing at £60,004 but still remaining much lower than that of a Big Data Specialist who can expect to earn £70,945.

Ten UK cities - London, Birmingham, Brighton, Bristol, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester and Newcastle upon Tyne - are developing reputations as technology cluster hubs and are set to face challenges as hacks and security breaches are getting more prevalent.  Businesses could be vulnerable to more cyber attacks as budget cuts and the introduction of IR35 could create a disparity in the supply and remuneration in the industry.

The Director of Specialist Markets for Experis UK & Ireland, Martin Ewings, commented:

“These figures paint a complex picture of the cybersecurity landscape. While hacks are on the rise, the slowing demand for permanent IT security staff indicates that businesses are focusing on up-skilling current employees to ensure that they have the skills needed. The Internet of Things (IoT) has transformed the way that companies across every industry work; and cyber security is now everyone’s responsibility – not just the IT departments. From Web Development to Big Data and Mobile, businesses are conscious that IT Security needs to be factored into all digital projects from the start and employers are up-skilling their existing workforce in response. However, in what is being dubbed ‘the year of regulation’ and following several years dominated by major hacks and security breaches, businesses need to ensure that they are not resting on their laurels when it comes to keeping pace with the ever more sophisticated cyber threats they will face.”

He added:

“This trend is the result of a combination of different factors in the public and private sectors. On the one hand, businesses are plugging their short-term skills gap with more contractors but allocating them to lower value, higher volume security tasks; freeing up the permanent staff to focus on their more complex workload. But developments in the public sector are having an even bigger and long-lasting impact on the short-term market. Budget cuts and the introduction of IR35 have artificially forced down the market value of IT Security contractor day rates.” 

And he concluded with:

“The complex architecture and high-profile nature of public sector work will always ensure the volume demand of IT Security contractor work, but the downward pressure on day-rates could see the supply of workers transition to permanent roles in the private sector – potentially leaving the public sector understaffed and vulnerable to attack. Many contractors are uniting in response to this, forming their own contractor businesses to work on a subscription-based model. If this trend continues, we could see these new players disrupt the traditional large enterprise outsourcers in 2018 and beyond.”

According to Mercer’s Impact of US Corporate Tax Reform on Employee Rewards poll which was conducted in January, 79% of employers are expecting to receive tax savings from the new tax law. 

Approximately, one-third - 32% of the 241 companies who participated - expect to redirect some portion of corporate income tax savings into their employee reward programs.  47 percent have stated that they do not plan to redirect the savings to any employee programs and 22% state that they do not expect any tax savings.

HR professionals have seen many stories about giant organizations passing their savings to their employees but, until the study, it has not been possible to get a true picture of just how many employers - percentage wise - that will be. 

Since the U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed there have been several high-profile reports from companies announcing plans to redirect tax savings into increased minimum wages or one-time bonuses for their employees, either of which would be welcomed by their employees. 

The survey results reveal that employers are also considering a broader range of actions.  Some survey participants said that they anticipate increasing investment in employee training and development programs - with redirected tax savings - than any other action.  This is a sign that many companies are looking for longer-term investments in human capital.

Mary Ann Sardone - a partner and the North America Workforce Rewards Practice Leader with Mercer - says the findings suggest that companies are thinking of tactical ways to use the tax savings for long-term goals.  She stated:

“Using redirected tax savings for employee training and development signals that many companies are looking for longer-term investment in their human capital.  While tax reform is still new, many companies are considering a wide range of potential employee investments as they evaluate their approach.  As with any strategic human capital investment, alignment with overall business and people strategy is critical to having a lasting impact.”

One major example is AT&T. The company announced it would give a $1,000 bonus to more than 200,000 U.S. workers and invest $1 billion in the U.S. economy because of the new tax law.

Adam Michel, policy analyst for economic studies at The Heritage Foundation, thinks the moves that businesses are making show proof that tax reform is working.  He stated:

“Raises, bonuses and new investments spurred by tax reform show that the Republicans tax reform is working how they said it would. Businesses across America are putting their tax cuts to work for the American people.  This first wave of stories is great news, but the real benefits are yet to come.  Tax reform expands the economic pie so that more Americans will be better off.”

$4.5 million for an employer's failure to grant additional leave under state law was recently granted by a Californian court – in the case of Hill v. Asian American Drug Abuse Program Inc.  

Although several previous court rulings have come down on the side of the employers who denied extended leave under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), it would now seem that this issue has not been established.

Della Hill worked as a counselor for a nonprofit drug abuse program in Los Angeles County - and in 2014, she was honored by that county for her work.  However, in 2015 she injured her arm and subsequently took time off to recover from the injury and also from a diagnosis of severe depression. She was scheduled to return to work on March 23, 2015 but she then asked for an extension of her leave, under state law, until April 11, 2015 - an additional 18 days.

Della Hill’s employers ignored her request and she did not return to work. Instead, she was fired from her job on March 31, 2015 without further discussion about any alternatives or possible re-employment.

As a result, Della Hill filed a suit under Californian law - which is analyzed similarly to federal anti-discrimination law - and last month the jury found in her favor, awarding her $550,000 in past and future wage loss, $1.35 million in compensatory damages, and $2.6 million in punitive damages, the latter due to the fact that the employer failed to engage her in any interactive discussion.  The jury decided that this was evidence of "malice, oppression or fraud". 

Ms Hill was represented by the Los Angeles-based employment discrimination firm Shegerian & Associates.  Carney Shegerian, trial lawyer and founder of the firm, said:

"Ms. Hill was a hard-working employee who was dedicated to her work with AADAP prior to her termination. After breaking her arm, Ms. Hill took a protected leave of absence, which was when she was diagnosed with major depression.” 

He went on to say:

“Employers have a legal obligation to make reasonable accommodations for disabled employees and to engage in a dialogue to gauge their needs. But instead of accommodating Ms. Hill after learning of her diagnosis, AADAP chose to wrongfully terminate her employment because of her disability."

Carney Shegerian added:

“Ms. Hill was not only a victim of discrimination in the workplace, but her firing was covered up under the excuse that it was a financial hardship to keep her out on a leave of absence despite such leave being unpaid.  The termination, without warning or legal justification, forever changed Ms. Hill's life.  This sizable verdict should serve as a warning to other employers that there are serious consequences for not only violating an employee's rights in the workplace but for covering up such violations based on unfounded reasons.”

The population in America is ageing – and so is its workforce.  There are now more Americans aged 65 years and older than in almost two decades. Early retirement seems to be a thing of the past, as the seniors are predicted to be the fastest growing section through 2024 and reasons for this are suggested as long life, lack of retirement savings, high housing and health care costs. 

Jen Schramm, SHRM-SCP - who is senior strategic policy advisor for labor market issues at the AARP Public Policy Institute – said:

“Several factors influence how long people stay in the labor force. Increasing longevity means that people need to finance a longer period of retirement. Many people have not saved enough money for retirement and are facing increased costs of living—particularly burdensome are housing costs and medical expenses.”

Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics was analyzed to understand which jobs older Americans were taking and how the workforce had changed since 2006.  According to a December 2017 study by SeniorLiving.org, it was found that the number of employed senior Americans had risen by 35 percent between 2011 and 2016.

The study also found that management, sales and office support were the top three occupations for the over 65s - having remained relatively the same since 2011, but with the numbers of employees having increased.  The top field for older Americans is management - employing 1.4 million seniors in 2016.

Jen Schramm said:

"Workers with higher levels of education often have more opportunities to remain in the workforce at older ages. Workers in occupations and with skills that are in high demand may have the opportunity to work longer if employers provide incentives to remain in the workforce."

The second highest number of older Americans was employed in the Sales industry - about 1.2 million.  Sales consists of cashiers; counter and rental clerks; advertising positions; insurances and financial services; travel and real estate – among others.

Production occupations employed the smallest number of older Americans and this could be due to the fact that over time, certain skills become harder to maintain due to normal ageing effects.  This limits the number of jobs an older person can perform.  However, production occupations still showed a 36 percent increase in the employment of seniors from 2011 – 2015.

Americans still see retirement as their goal but are not all in a hurry to do take it up. 

The study points to the fact that the percentage of older American women who stay at work is lower than the percentage of older American men – but the women plan to work longer than the men, according to Melody Kasulis, project manager for SeniorLiving.org.  She remarks:

“I'd speculate and say that it could be for multiple reasons like better health, length of life, desire to stay busy after their children have left the household.  The cost of living has a lot to do with the extra years people in the retirement age group are trying to put in."

Jen Schramm said:

 "AARP research has found that among people ages 65 to 74 who are currently working or looking for work, 35 percent cite the need for money as the most important factor in their decision to work. Finances are therefore likely a key factor for many women working later in life. Approximately 19 percent of people ages 65 to 74 say that the most important factor in their decision to work is that they enjoy working."

During 2018 there will be a number of important law developments – including the response to the Taylor report. 

Employers will be continuing with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) compliance and gender pay gap reporting, along with preparations for Brexit. 

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which updates data protection law across the EU, will come into effect on 25 May 2018 for all EU member states - including the UK.  Data audits and policy reviews will be carried out by employers to make certain that their data protection meets the terms of the regulations.

Organisations in the private or voluntary sector with 250 or more employees will be required to publish their first gender pay gap report by 4 April 2018 and certain public-sector employers with 250 or more employees have until 30 March 2018 to publish. Employers are required to post their reports on their own website and also on a Government website.

Reports of incorrect gender pay gap submissions have shown up the difficulties that organisations have in completing the calculations correctly.  At present, more than 350 employers have published gender pay gap reports on the Government website.

Minimum wages rise each April, and this year will increase to £7.83 for employees aged 25 and over; £7.38 for those aged 21 to 24; 18 to 20-year-olds are due to be paid £5.90; under 18’s will receive £4.20 and apprentices £3.70 with the accommodation offset increasing to £7 per day.

Workers must be at least school leaving age (last Friday in June of the school year they turn 16) to get the National Minimum Wage. They must be 25 or over to get the National Living Wage.

Contracts for payments below the minimum wage are not legally binding. The worker is still entitled to the National Minimum Wage or National Living Wage.

Workers are also entitled to the correct minimum wage if they are:

• part-time
• casual labourers - for example, someone hired for one day
• agency workers
• workers and home workers paid by the number of items they make
• apprentices
• trainees, workers on probation
• disabled workers
• agricultural workers
• foreign workers
• seafarers
• offshore workers

The weekly amount for statutory family pay rates will also increase to £145.18 on 1 April 2018 and this rate will apply to maternity pay, adoption pay,  paternity pay, shared parental pay and maternity allowance.

With regard to the Brexit preparations, the terms of the initial agreement with the EU protect the rights of EU citizens currently residing in the UK – providing employers with more confidence.  However, the agreement does not include the ability of new EU workers to work in the UK after Brexit and employers in sectors that rely on considerable inflows of European workers are still waiting for confirmation of immigration arrangements following withdrawal from the EU.

According to the Ministry of Justice, more than £1.8 million has been processed since the charging of employment tribunal fees was declared illegal.  Over 4,600 applications for refunds had been received between 20 October and 18 December 2017 and this had resulted in £1,808,310 being refunded to claimants.

In July of last year, the Supreme Court ruled that the Tribunal fees regime, where a claimant was required to pay a fee to bring their claim against an employer to Court, was unlawful as it infringed the rights of employees - in some circumstances making access to justice impossible. This followed a legal challenge by Unison.

Justice Minister, Dominic Raab told the Justice Committee that employment tribunal fee refunds were expected to be in the region of £33m, based on the fees paid since they were introduced in 2013.  It is likely the number of people entitled to a refund could reach 100,000.

It is thought that the refunds consist of the actual amount a claimant paid for the Tribunal - plus interest of 0.5% calculated from the date of the original payment to the refund date. 

Catherine Greig, a senior associate at MacRoberts, commented on the refunds already made, saying,

“The numbers are so small at the moment because of the small timeframe. However, bigger legal firms could be doing a lot of admin for claims behind the scenes and it could be a case of the floodgates opening soon because they’ll be sitting on claims.”

Nicholas Robertson, head of employment at Mayer Brown’s London office, said,

“There may have been some late claims lodged immediately after the Unison case, where claimants were prevented from suing by the potential fees and are bringing older claims now, as quickly as possible, and relying on the tribunal to permit such out of date claims to go ahead. This feature by its very nature will be short-lived.”

“I said after the outcome of the Unison case that my instinct was that there would be more tribunal claims, but it remains to be seen if tribunal claims will return to the levels before the introduction of the fees regime. My view is that they will not return to those levels.”

He added that fewer claims were being lodged by multiple claimants - which may suggest people were being advised that it was safer to bring a claim individually.

“The tribunal system’s resources were reduced to handle a reduced level of anticipated claims. So increased hearing times are not surprising even if there is only a relatively modest increase in the number of claims.”

The removal of the Tribunal fees leaves a gap in Government funding increased by the refunds that will be paid.  However, there is no indication as yet that a new fee regime will be introduced.   

However, it has been advised that employers should be vigilant in their treatment of staff to ensure fair practice is maintained across the workforce and that policies and procedures are in not only in place, but followed.      

A New Jersey jury recently awarded an engineer $51 million after claims he was discriminated against because of his age. Human resource experts say this may be the largest award ever in an age discrimination case. 

Robert Braden had been employed by Lockheed Martin for almost 30 years when he was suddenly laid off in July 2012 as part of an organization-wide reduction in force (RIF).  Months after, Braden filed a charge of age discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  He claimed he was the oldest of 6 people in a company unit but the only one from the unit fired.

Braden said that he felt as if he was selected for the layoff due to his senior age (66).  The two other employees in Braden’s unit had the same title, were significantly younger and allowed to keep their jobs. He also alleged that the company had a pattern of giving younger employees better reviews and better raises in order to keep them at the company.  Older workers were given lower ratings and lower raises because, “they had nowhere else to go.” 

Braden withdrew his claim with the EEOC so he could sue Lockheed Martin in a New Jersey federal court (2014).  Lockheed Martin defended the claims and said Braden had a below average record of performance, lacked many skills and was not terminated because of any discriminatory reason.  The jury ended up siding with Braden and awarded him almost $50 million in punitive damages and $520,000 for lost wages.

The government have revealed plans whereby people planning their retirement will be able to withdraw up to £1500 from their pension pots, tax-free, in order to pay for financial advice.

Pension Advice Allowance, as the plan is being called, was first announced in the Autumn Statement 2016.  The plan will allow people to withdraw £500 on up to three different occasions from their pension pots, tax-free.  The only catch is that the money has to be put towards the cost of pensions and retirement advice.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury announced that the £500 allowance can be used a total of three times, in a single tax year.  This will allow people to access advice at different stages of their lives.  Additionally, the money can be redeemed against the cost of regulated financial advice and extends to ‘robo advice’ in addition to face-to-face advice.

Research revealed that only 22% of people approaching retirement know the value of their pot.  Less than 15% of people would be confident planning for their retirement without financial advice.

UK savers with a pension of £100,000, according to Unbiased, save an average of £98 more every month if they take financial advice.

The Government published a response to the consultation on the introduction of Pensions Advice Allowance, and HMRC will have a three-week technical consultation on the draft regulations.

The Pensions Regulator (TPR) announced that for the first time ever the number of participants in defined contribution plans in the UK outnumbered those in defined benefit funds, primarily due to automatic enrollment.

In the annual DC report, TPR said defined contribution arrangements had 14.8 million participants (2016).  Defined benefit plans only amounted to 11.7 million.

Executive director for regulatory policy, Andrew Warwick-Thompson, said that 7 million workers joined pensions for the first time thanks to automatic enrollment.  Warwick-Thompson however, did express concerns over the fragmentation of defined contribution arrangements.  He said, “we strongly believe that it is unacceptable to have two classes of DC pension saver – those that benefit from the premium scale and good governance and administration, and those that do not.”         

Details of a trustee initiative will be released later this year and will include clear objectives that will help raise standards of trusteeship and take regulatory action against those who fail to meet a required level of competence.

Since the government’s pensions freedoms were introduced in April 2015, savers have cashed in £9.2 billion from their pension pots.

According to recently released HMRC figures, over 1.5 million payments have been made using pension freedoms.  Additionally, 162,000 people accessed £1.56 billion flexibly from their pension pots over the last 3 months.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Simon Kirby, explained that giving people freedom over what to do with their savings is just the right thing to do. 

Those who are choosing to access their pensions are also able to take advantage of the free and impartial government provided guidance service, Pension Wise, which has had over 3.7 million website visits and over 100,000 appointments to date.

New research conducted by Aires, a relocation services provider based out of Pennsylvania, says the practice of offering relocating employees a core set of benefits in addition to optional, flexible add-ons is becoming more of the norm. 

According to the data, about 25% of Aires’ clients use this kind of flexible approach in order to create personalized packages for talent.  This practice has been increasing in popularity pretty steadily over the course of the last few years.

Core benefits include reimbursement for things like travel, household goods, automobile and storage options and different kinds of cash allowances.  Flex benefits, on the other hand, include things like reimbursement for home-seeking expenses, temporary housing, home sale and purchase assistance and spousal assistance.

Companies that utilize this kind of core-flex procedures typically set model parameters around the flex benefits, often times allowing the employee to dictate different pieces that will be included in their model.

One human resource expert suggests these packages are increasing in popularity because they become customizable to each situation. Giving employees the ability to dictate what goes into their package based on what is most important to them, according to HR experts, increases engagement and satisfaction.

On January 20, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), the largest union representing workers in this industry, announced it will petition the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to conduct a union election.

Unfortunately for Boeing this is the second time in two years this union has expressed its desire to organize employees in North Charleston where 787 Dreamliners are currently assembled.  The IAM first filed a petition with the NLRB two years ago but withdrew it before the scheduled vote.

In the press release announcing the NLRB filing, the union cited “numerous workplace concerns that remain unaddressed, including subjective raises, inconsistent scheduling policies and a lack of respect on the shop floor,” as leading to the arranging of this campaign.

IAM’s lead organizer at the Boeing South Carolina plant, Mike Evans, said employees aren’t asking for anything out of the ordinary.  They just want to be treated with respect and with the same set of standards that are present in other Boeing plants.

Boeing released a statement saying it “firmly believes that a union is not in the best interest of Boeing South Carolina teammates and their families.”  If the NLRB allows a vote to take place, employees will ultimately decide whether or not they’ll turn over their rights to the IAM or maintain their direct relationship with the company they work for.  Obviously, Boeing wants to avoid a vote at all costs especially if there are murmurs of a strike.

The political situation in the United States isn’t helping the situation either as there are many uncertainties surrounding NLRB members

As per the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, new regulations will take effect on January 3, 2018 to clarify federal agencies’ affirmative action role and obligations as employers under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 501).

The new regulations, which will not affect private businesses and state/local governments, move to consolidate affirmative action requirements including procedures for providing reasonable accommodations.  In addition to current action items, there will be two additional items included in the regulations.

Federal agencies must take specific steps to gradually increase the number of employees they hire who have a disability as defined under Section 501, as well as to increase the number of employees who have what the government defines as a "targeted" disability—including autism, blindness, deafness, mental illness, paralysis and convulsive disorders. Targeted disabilities are thought to pose the greatest barriers to employment.

These regulations say, in layman’s terms, that agencies should aim for employees with disabilities to make up over 10 percent of their workforce.  Employees who have a targeted disability should make up another two percent of each agency’s workforce.  These should also apply to workers at all ends of the pay spectrum, high and low.

One human resource expert explained that in the United States there are about 1.2 million people with a targeted disability who are unemployed and actively seeking work.  These new regulations are working for more equality in the workplace when it comes to those with disabilities. These new rules provide some sort of accountability. 

By the end of December 2016, the aggregate deficit of the almost 6,000 schemes included in the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) 7800 Index had risen to £223.9bn. 

In November 2016, there was a deficit of only £194.7bn.  Andy Tunningley, head of UK strategic clients at BlackRock, recently weighed in on the latest figures saying for UK pension schemes, “2016 was like a marathon on a treadmill.”  He went on to explain how the aggregate funding ratio went up and down all year long, ultimately to end very close to where it started. The only schemes that avoided playing this up and down game were those that implemented LDI, according to human resource experts.

HR experts say that as pension funds age, the cost of making any kind of wrong decision gets greater and greater.  Strong risk management is extremely important now, especially when you consider the volatility of the UK economy.  Buyer beware, however, it is important to note that risk management alone is simply not enough. 

It is often said that lawyers who work with United States companies with workplaces in the United Kingdom often come across differences between employment law in the US and Britain. This is especially true when it comes to contracts of employment.

The US views employment as an “at will” activity, which means an employee can be terminated for any lawful reason, with or without cause. The United Kingdom has concepts like fair dismissal and statutory minimum notice periods, which the US would know nothing about. The same goes for amending contracts.

If employment is not to be “at will”, a United States written contract should lay out the terms that apply to the agreement.

In the United Kingdom, the EU dictates working time restrictions, which sets limits on average weekly working hours, work breaks and rest days. In this case, the law in the US differs from state to state, although most states do require rest breaks after a certain length shift. Overtime is also awarded when an employee works over 40 hours in one week.

The EU law also dictates annual holiday entitlement. In the United States, holiday entitlement does not really exist. Many employees are granted 11 federal holidays off with some other holidays as well. Something that these two countries do have in common when it comes to time off is that they both pay, in some way, for untaken time off. In the US, in some cases, an employee could be granted pay in lieu of accrued untaken paid time off. In the UK, untaken holiday pay is paid out to employees.

Both countries also prohibit any kind of discrimination (including age) as well as victimisation for whistleblowing. The UK protection age discrimination protects employees of all ages, however in the US, this same protection only covers an employee if they are 40 or older. This remains true unless a local state government lowered the age limit, like in New York.

US law requires companies with 100 or more employees to give their workers at least 60 days notice when considering mass redundancies that involve 500 or more dismissals at one site, or when a third of the total site workforce are being dismissed. Of course, the state can always dictate otherwise. The United Kingdom says companies must consult with employees at least 30 days ahead of time when it comes to the first redundancy when 20 or more redundancies are proposed within a period of 90 days at one establishment.

Whilst many laws are different between these countries, the foundation of employment law in both countries remains similar. In both of these countries, employers and employees are protected.

Participants in employee stock ownership plans will have a harder time bringing stock-drop cases after a Supreme Court ruling.

A stock-drop case involves plan participants suing plan fiduciaries when company stock prices drop, often times claiming that the company should have sold the stocks based on information it had about the value of the stock itself.

A recent class action suit involves Amgen Inc., a pharmaceutical company based in California, and former employees. The plaintiffs alleged the fiduciaries breached their duties, including their duty of prudence, because they knew the stock price was inflated. While the district court granted a motion to dismiss, the 9^th US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling.

In Fifth Third Bancorp vs Dudenhoeffer, the Supreme Court made a ruling that said there is no presumption of prudence for fiduciaries. The court also noted, however, that the lower courts facing stock-drop claims should always consider “whether the complaint was plausibly alleged that a prudent fiduciary in the defendant’s position could not have concluded that stopping purchases - which the market might take as a sign that insider fiduciaries viewed the employer’s stock as a bad investment - or publicly disclosing negative information would do more harm than good to the fund.”

The high court ended up vacating the 9^th Circuit’s Amgen ruling and actually sent the case back to the lower court for proceedings more consistent with Fifth Third. Ultimately, the Supreme Court felt that the lower court did not accurately assess whether the complaint plausibly alleged that stopping stock purchases would do more harm than good. The 9^th Circuit ended up reversing the dismissal of the complaint, again. At this point, the Supreme Court granted review, yet again.

The Fifth Third case isn’t necessarily bad for fiduciaries, according to human resource experts. It may actually be good for them since plaintiffs must plausibly allege that selling the stock would not do more harm than good. This, in and of itself, is an extremely difficult feat.

There has yet to be a resolution in Amgen v Harris. The case has, most recently, been sent back to the district court.

Although almost one million new jobs were created in the United Kingdom over the last four years, wages for those living in urban areas decreased by five percent in the same amount of time. Now, each urban worker earns a wage of approximately £1,300.

The data was revealed in the report Cities Outlook 2016, which investigated the economies of the United Kingdom’s 63 largest cities. From 2010 - 2014, over 980,000 new jobs were created. The research revealed that 29 of the cities that accounted for many of these new jobs qualified as ‘low wage, high welfare’ economies.

This report comes at an interesting time. It was released after the Summer Budget 2015, which calls for higher wages with lower welfare levels.

Human resource experts however explained that 14 British cities are already achieving this high wage low welfare kind of economy, meaning that it is possible. The report suggests that government policy makers could learn from these cities, which include London.

The report also states that cities with higher wages had enjoyed faster job growth when compared to other, low-wage cities. The report goes on to explain that cities should really focus on supporting high-skilled employment in knowledge-intensive sectors, like digital and professional areas, because these jobs help raise average pay. Higher average pay for some could fuel other parts of the economy, like retail and leisure.

The report did prove to have some geographical evidence of wealth distribution as well. There was a true North/South divide, with eight of the top 10 high wage and low welfare cities located in the South East. Nine of the bottom 10 cities were located in the North or Midlands.

The authors of the report are urging the government to increase investment in regional economies and are advising to give more control to cities over local tax revenue, skills, infrastructure and housing.

In a recent human resource case, Balfour Beatty paid £137,000 to a whistleblower that said he was bullied out of his job.

Nigel McArthur was a pre-construction manager for Balfour Beatty in Exmouth.  McArthur claimed that managers at the company hounded him after he expressed concerns over the true cost of an £18.5m building project in Cardiff.

The Welsh Government awarded Balfour Beatty a contract to construct a building in Callaghan Square.  After construction began it was halted before the structure was finished.  Balfour Beatty was paid for the work that was completed, which was approximately £600,000 worth.     

According to McArthur, Balfour Beatty overcharged the Welsh Government for the construction work by hiding the true costs of the construction.  He found that the true sub-contractor costs were hidden in order to increase profit margins from the agreed 3.3% to 7.34%.

When McArthur initially shared his findings with his line manager he was told, “he should not have investigated the costs or alternatively that he should not be concerned about it”.  After the conversation, McArthur claimed his fellow employees bullied him until he finally left the company in February 2015.

Terry Falcao, of Stephens and Scown, said that McArthur’s claim was originally met with denial by the construction firm.  This stayed true until November 2015, just two weeks before the employment tribunal hearing was due.  It was at this time that Balfour Beatty admitted liability for not supporting its employee, but did not admit to carrying out any kind of criminal activity or breaching legal obligations.  Additionally, the company did apologise for failing to treat McArthur with proper care when he raised concerns. 

Balfour Beatty ended up paying McArthur £137,000 after admitting to their “wrongdoing”.  There is no word on whether the Welsh government intends to finish the construction and if they will allow Balfour Beatty to do so.

Hymans Robertson reported that UK defined benefit schemes have over £1trn of unhedged interest rate exposure, even though the value of assets held in bonds have nearly tripled over the last ten years.

Human resource experts feel as though this really highlights the need for schemes to understand what their largest risks are and how to manoeuvre them strategically.  When the FTSE350 is considered, most companies have paid in £250bn to try and help funding holes since the onset of the millennium.  Risks need to be supreme in people’s minds, but this will never happen if companies continue to clean up the mess.

The £1trn of unhedged interest rate exposure is a prime example of why risk management needs to be considered for DB schemes. 

When the UK is analysed in conjunction with DB schemes, schemes are being paid out around £20bn more per annum than they receive in contributions across the whole private sector.

Cashflow negative schemes are becoming more and more of a reality and face a whole arsenal of risks that most people aren’t aware of.  “Market volatility is an inescapable reality.”  This kind of risk should be at the forefront of investors’ minds.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, recently resolved two separate cases of discrimination for thousands of dollars.

The first case revolved around Seymour Midwest, who selected Steve Maril from a pool of applicants to participate in a preliminary email-based interview, for a senior vice president of sales position.  Seymour Midwest is a hand tool manufacturing company based out of Warsaw, Indiana.

Maril received questions about previous work experience, willingness to relocate and a question about age.  Seymour Midwest’s ideal age for the position fell between 45 and 52.  When the company learned Maril was older than the ideal age range, the company refused to hire him.

At this point, the EEOC filed suit in the US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana claiming that Seymour Midwest violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

The company was ordered to halt all questions surrounding age during the hiring process prior to making a job offer.  In addition to having to provide training to hiring personnel, Seymour Midwest will also have to adhere to periodic compliance reporting and pay out $100,000.

Another case involved a food service distributor, Gilbert Foods LLC, trading as Hearn-Kirkwood.  This company was ordered to pay $63,500 and furnish significant relief to resolve a pay discrimination and retaliation lawsuit.

This case also included some gender discrimination.  EEOC charged that Hearn-Kirkwood paid Sonia Coates significantly less than her male counterparts, even though she had far more experience.  Once Coates learned that a new male employee was getting paid more than she was, she told co-workers she planned on filing a charge of discrimination.

Word travelled fast throughout the office and according to the lawsuit, once a Hearn-Kirkwood manager learned of Coates’ plans he premeditated them by firing her, without making it appear unlawful.  Coates was eventually terminated due to a string of unwarranted disciplinary actions, according to the EEOC.

The company violated the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, per the EEOC.  A suit was filed in US District Court for the Northern District of Maryland.

In addition to the monetary consequences, Hearn-Kirkwood will also report to the EEOC about its compliance and will post a notice about the settlement, amongst other things.

After conducting an in depth study, Acas found that a high proportion of employment tribunal awards aren’t paid, requiring payments to be enforced. However, when Acas mediates, payments are often made without any kind of enforcement.

IFF Research conducted the study for the service using a pool of 1,500 claimants who settled with a COT3 agreement in both Pre Claim Conciliation cases and individual cases. The study only viewed cases closed between the beginning of January and the end of March of last year. This was before Early Conciliation was introduced.

The Acas research found that just over half of claimants collect their employment tribunal awards without any kind of hassle. More than nine out of 10 employers pay compensation without the need for additional enforcement.

Acas and the team of HR experts that conducted the study also examined different types of workplaces involved in disputes and the different compensation levels for pay awards. Most of the time, settled disputes related to unfair dismissal and wage claims. On average, the compensation was about £3,000.

Acas Chair Sir Brendan Barber said that while low compliance rates with tribunal awards will remain a major concern, he was happy to see what the data said.

“It shows the crucial value of Acas’ impartial conciliation service in securing agreed settlements to disputes,” Barber said.

The National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF) and the Pensions Management Institute (PMI) announced that any plans on merging the two organisations have been closed.

The PMI is the professional body which supports and develops the HR experts who run United Kingdom pension schemes. It has 6500 members who are dedicated to maintaining the highest levels of pensions knowledge.

The NAPF is the voice of workplace pensions in the UK. It spreads best practice among its 400 members and promotes policies that add value for savers.

Paul Couchman, President of the PMI said that the discussions with NAPF had been positive and that there was a long exploration of the many complementary areas of expertise that both organisations offer.

The Chairman of the NAPF, Ruston Smith, also released a statement that seemed a bit more disappointed.

“We must…respect the PMI’s decision not to pursue this opportunity,” Smith said. “The NAPF continues to fulfill the needs of our members by providing them with the high quality services they require, including education and policy solutions.”

The leading cause of workplace injury in 2012 was attributed to overexertion in the workplace, according to the Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety’s 2014 Workplace Safety Index.

Injuries related to lifting, pushing, pulling, holding, carrying, or throwing represented 25% of the top 10 work hazards, costing US companies $15.1 billion in the same time period.

The index ranks the 10 leading causes of workplace injuries and then associates them with direct workers’ compensation costs. The report draws information from Liberty Mutual’s workers’ comp claims, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Academy of Social Insurance. Researchers then looked at the BLS injury event coding to see which injuries caused employees to miss six or more days of work. These events were then ranked by total works’ compensation costs.

The top 10 causes are as follows:
1. Overexertion (25 percent, costing $15.1B).
2. Falls on same level (15 percent, costing $9.1B).
3. Struck by object or equipment (9 percent, costing $5.3B).
4. Falls to lower level (9 percent, costing $5.1B).
5. Other exertions or bodily reactions (7 percent, costing $4.27B).
6. Roadway incidents involving vehicles (5 percent, costing $3.18B).
7. Slip or trip without fall (4 percent, costing $2.17B).
8. Caught in/compressed by equipment or objects (4 percent, costing $2.1B).
9. Repetitive motions involving micro-tasks (3 percent, costing $1.84B).
10. Struck against object or equipment (3 percent, costing $1.76B).

In total, the listed injuries amounted to approximately $60 billion in US workers’ comp costs in 2012, the last year this data is available.

New research revealed that four in ten graduate jobs go to those that have done internships.

With tuition fees reaching well over £9,000 per year, students are sometimes thinking about their career path before even stepping foot into their first college class.

One HR expert explained that just a decade ago many recruitment companies focused their efforts on students that were in the last six months of their three-year degree course.  Now, however, the recruitment process begins much earlier.

With that said, competition has become much more fierce.  Applicants these days aren’t just required to submit a CV, but they have to undertake critical reasoning tests, practical exercises, multiple interviews and evidence of existing relevant work experiences…all before they even step foot into their university.

Human resource experts also revealed that there is what seems like an underground internship bucket system of what are called “pipeline” interns and “referral” interns.

Pipeline interns are recruited via programmes that aim to attract the best future employees.  Whereas referral interns are often found through unpaid schemes and word of mouth.

Referral interns have a reputation of being at the right place at the right time or just plain knowing the right person.  Time and time again, the same old story is told of someone entering the workplace because they are so-and-so’s son or daughter.  While this is not always true, some companies have set rules against this type of procedure, outlawing it for the sake of workplace morale. 

Regardless of the type of intern, experts warn that even interns sometimes need to put their foot down.  Companies with interns can be infamous for exploiting them to run errands that have nothing to do with the type of work they are there to do.   It is reported that this type of exploitation is seen the most in jobs focused in the media, advertising and marketing sectors.  It appears that it happens in these types of companies the most because there are so few openings and so many candidates vying for positions.

If an intern feels exploited, experts say that it is okay to voice that opinion as long as it is done respectfully.   

During the recent economic downturn it has become apparent that the cost of retirement provision has become very expensive. Coupled with an era when asset values have declined, this has led to increasing concerns: Governments, employers and employees alike have now realized that there will not be sufficient savings to enable employees to retire as early as in recent years and maintain their standard of living. Indeed, the need to further increase Pension Age has already been highlighted and many of the closed Defined Benefit Pension Schemes (“DB”) are now seeking additional employer contributions to fund enormous deficits.

Costs have not only been driven up by asset valuations declining but over the last few years actuaries have determined that mortality tables need to be strengthened. This is to reflect the fact that people are on average expected to live longer and will therefore draw their pensions over an extended period. Obviously this will also have an impact when assessing the financial implications of a personal injury claim.

Why has this come about?

There are several reasons why the retirement landscape is changing so significantly.

The first is increased longevity which means that providing a pension based on only a small proportion of your total life is an unreasonable expectation. For example, if an individual starts work at age 21 and retires at age 55 that will represent an employed period of 34 years service. If the same employee lives to age 90, that means they will enjoy 35 years of retirement whilst drawing a pension. It is totally unrealistic to provide for a pension over such a short period of time and then expect to draw it for another 30+ years. Periods of absence from the workplace due to redundancy or career breaks only increase the pension problem.