Showing posts with label Employees. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Employees. Show all posts

Tuesday, 11 January 2011

UCATT warns on site safety in cold weather

With the cold weather still looming about, construction union UCATT are warning construction employers that extra checks need to be made on sites, to ensure that work can be conducted safely, during the current extremely cold weather.

Employers need to undertake additional risk assessments during extreme weather in order to ensure that sites are safe before work progresses. Employers also need to ensure that:

- Appropriate protective equipment is used
- Mobile facilities for warming up and warm fluids such as hot chocolate or soup are provided
- They introduce more frequent rest breaks
- Workers are educated on recognising the early symptoms of cold stress/ early signs of hypothermia. These include shivering, loss of co-ordination, slurred speech, memory loss and pale cold skin.


Alan Ritchie, General Secretary of UCATT, said: "cold weather brings additional dangers to the construction industry. It is essential that employers ensure sites are safe and proper facilities are provided during cold weather working. If employers do not believe that their site is safe they should stop work immediately until problems are resolved".

Friday, 26 November 2010

Royal Public Holiday - Are your staff entitled to the day off?

The world is currently fascinated with next year’s Royal wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton and Westminster and Holyrood governments have both declared that the big day planned for 29th April next year will be a national celebration and marked with a public holiday.

The announcements by Prime Minister David Cameron and First Minister Alex Salmond, means there will be two consecutive bank holiday weekends resulting in millions of employees working a three-day week. This substantial loss of working time will be costly for every business but it may prove to be particularly disruptive in the current economic climate when businesses are facing tougher times.

Mr Cameron and Mr Salmond’s declaration of an additional public holiday in 2011, may have given UK workers the impression that they are entitled to the day off to join in the Royal celebrations with the rest of the nation, however this is not the case.

Leading Aberdeen-based HR and employment law firm, Empire HR, is encouraging businesses to think ahead about how they wish to approach the forthcoming celebration in the workplace as it is not compulsory to shut up shop.

According to Empire HR, a national day will not automatically mean an extra days holiday. Companies do not have to honour the new holiday and employees should refer to their contract of employment to check their holiday entitlement. However, since the wedding will be an historic and momentous occasion, it may be mean spirited if a company doesn’t join in with the celebration and honour the public holiday.

A similar situation arose with the extra public holiday granted for the millennium. At the time a tribunal case considered contractual rights to holiday entitlement and ruled that unless it was clearly stated in the contract of employment, the employee would not be granted an additional day’s pay.

CEO of Empire HR, Steve Cook, is urging managers to examine the company approach to public holidays. He said; “Many contracts of employment state an employee is entitled to a fixed number of public holidays. Anyone who has a fixed number of public holidays written into their contract will not be entitled to the additional day off. As a result, anyone wishing to take the day off would have to book the day in accordance with their company annual leave policy. “Only employees whose contracts state the employee is entitled to all public holidays would be entitled to the extra day off. Of course it would be open to generous employers to give all employees an additional day off regardless of their contract terms.”

Empire HR provide commercially focused employment law and HR support service including a telephone advice line, HR Consultancy, employment tribunal insurance and health & safety support for businesses across Scotland. Empire HR can assist businesses on all aspects of holiday entitlement. For further information, please contact Empire HR on 01224 701383



Friday, 5 November 2010

Tribunal Case Horror Stories - Trick or Treat?


Over the past year, tribunal cases have more than doubled in the UK, with the economic downturn being blamed on the unprecedented rise.

Steve Cook, Chief Executive of Empire HR based in Aberdeen discusses this with the Press & Journal.

In this article you will see some case studies that are more of a trick than a treat to employers!



Tuesday, 2 November 2010

Proposal to Increase Unfair Dismissal Qualifying Period to two years

At the moment the Government is actively considering an increase in the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from one year to two years.

The timetable for decision is yet to be announced and it is very likely that there will be a consultation period (about this and other employment law issues) first.


If the change in the qualifying period occurs, it will be moderately good news for employers but bad news for employees. In theory this would mean that employers would have an extra year to dismiss an employee unreasonably. But the employer could still face allegations of discrimenation or unfair dismissal claims where no qualifying period is required. This would include things such as whistle blowing and certain health & safety, maternity and trade union related dismissals. With these claims tending to be more expensive to defend than 'ordinary' unfair dismissal claims, it is unclear whether employers will find this proposal an entirely favourable change.

Tuesday, 19 October 2010

Health Questionnaires

Due to the large amounts of phone calls this month relating the health questionnaires we have decided to provide some information on the topic.

The Equality Bill generally prohibits the use of pre-employment questionnaires, although there are some exceptions. These are set out in Section 60(6) of the Bill. Amongst the 5 exceptions is:

S(60)(6)(b) establishing whether the applicant will be able to carry out a function that is intrinsic to the work concerned.

This exception is the one that is likely to have most relevance for employers but it is a narrow exception.

Therefore, I would only advise the use of a pre employment questionnaire intended to fall within this exception where:

1) There is a genuine requirement for the employee to carry out a task of a physical nature.

It would not normally be appropriate to use a questionnaire where the work is office based, or where there are no tasks that are particularly physical. The first stage in considering the use of the questionnaire is to establish what the requirement is (e.g. heavy lifting, running, 20/20 eyesight etc). There should be some evidence that this requirement is genuine, and not simply a speculative requirement.

2)That task requiring the physical work is essential to carry out the job.

If the task resulting in the requirement is not essential, or it could be assigned to a different employee, or is not required to be carried out very often, it would not normally be appropriate to use the questionnaire. For example, even if there is some physically demanding work involved, I would advise carefully considering whether the use of a questionnaire is appropriate if it is possible that they could do most of the job without carrying out the physical work. Therefore, after you have established what the requirement is, you need to consider how important it is that the applicant can fulfill it.

3) The requirement is a proportionate means of achieving the aim.

This means that it is important to carefully consider whether the requirement is the best way to achieve the task. For example, if you are stipulating that the applicant must have 20/20 vision due to the work being technical and intricate you would need to be sure that the requirement for 20/20 vision was proportionate - consider the consequences of an employee without perfect vision carrying out the task – if there would be no serious consequences the requirement for 20/20 vision is not likely to be a proportionate requirement.

4) The questions are designed to ascertain whether there may be a problem in carrying out the particular task.

Therefore, it would not be appropriate to ask questions that will not relate to the particular task in question. For example, it would not be advisable to ask a question about skin problems such as eczema if the task that the questionnaire related to is heavy lifting. This means that it would not normally be appropriate to have a standard format for the questionnaire asking a series of general questions. The questions should be relevant to the specific task necessitating a particular requirement that you have established as being a genuine requirement that is essential to carry out the job.

It is worth noting that any questions should be designed to ascertain current ability to carry out the task. Therefore, questions asking about past health issues are likely to fall foul of the Act. I would recommend steering clear of questions starting with ‘have you ever …..’ and replacing them with ‘do you …’

As a very simple example, the Act’s explanatory notes state that a questionnaire may be relevant where "An applicant applies for a job in a warehouse, which requires the manual lifting and handling of heavy items. As manual handling is a function which is intrinsic to the job, the employer is permitted to ask the applicant questions about his health to establish whether he is able to do the job (with reasonable adjustments for a disabled applicant, if required). The employer would not be permitted to ask the applicant other health questions until he or she offered the candidate a job."

When considering whether to use a pre-employment questionnaire it is worth bearing in mind that while asking an applicant health questions will not in itself amount to discrimination against a job applicant, acting on the answers may well do. Where an unsuccessful job applicant brings a direct disability discrimination claim, and the employer asked a pre employment health question for a non-prescribed reason, the burden of proof will shift automatically to the employer to show that no discrimination took place.

In addition, the EHRC will be able to take enforcement action in relation to prohibited questions even where no discrimination is alleged to have taken place.

This prohibition only relates to pre-employment questionnaires. Once an applicant has been offered a job, an employer can ask questions relating to health in order to ensure health & safety obligations are being met, that appropriate reasonable adjustments are met etc.

If you find that you still require more information or guidance on this matter please contact our advice helpline on 01224 701383.

Minimum Wage Reminder

At the beginning of October the rates of minimum wage in the UK increased.

The table below shows the up-to-date changes.

Rate

From 1 October 2010

From 1 October 2009

Workers aged 22 and over (minimum hourly rate)

£5.93

£5.80

Workers aged 18-21 and those aged 22 and over doing accredited training in the first six months of employment (minimum hourly rate)

£4.92

£4.83

Workers aged 16 and 17 (minimum hourly rate)

£3.64

£3.57

Apprentices under 19 or in the first year of apprenticeship (otherwise refer to age bands)

£2.50


Accommodation off-set (maximum deduction per day from NMW where employer provides accommodation)

£4.61

£4.51

Agricultural apprentices in England and Wales (first 12 months)

TBC

£3.57

Agricultural apprentices in Scotland (first 12 months)

TBC

£3.50