The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has supported controversial plans to extend maternity leave benefits; even though other business groups vehemently oppose plans to increase paid maternity leave from six to twelve months by 2010.

According to the CBI, employers would be prepared to “accept proposed extensions to family-friendly and flexible-working employment rights, but the government must prove its commitment to ‘better regulation’ by limiting their scope and introducing new measures to reduce the burden on businesses”.

A recent CBI/Pertemps survey indicated that 75 per cent of requests for flexible working had been accepted by employers, with compromise agreements reached in another 15 per cent of cases. Just 10 per cent of requests had been refused.

John Cridland, CBI deputy-general, commented: “Employers have been active in implementing new family-friendly employment rights, and are willing to go the extra mile with further extensions to these benefits.

“But this will inevitably add to the burden, particularly for smaller businesses, and our members expect the extended rights to be introduced in a balanced way, and to be the last for some time.”

Mr Cridland urged the Government to lighten the load on employers by taking back responsibility for maternity pay. He added: “The bottom line is that if employment rights go too far, they will cost jobs rather than improve them. The changes have to be workable on the business front line. The introduction of new rights must be accompanied by a commitment from Government to no further changes in this area during the lifetime of this parliament.”

The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has launched its campaign to limit working hours, highlighting employer ‘myths’ about the Working Time opt-out which, it argues, puts the health of 3.6 million workers at risk and damages efforts to increase UK productivity.

The TUC has published a brief which sets out a number of employer ‘myths’ about the effect of the 48-hour week on health and safety, worker choice and business success. It also examines the areas where employers have maintained a ‘pointed silence’, including the effect of long hours on women, families and lifelong learning.

Myths that the TUC is fighting to dispel include: long hours are not a health and safety issue; the UK has a good health and safety record, so there is no need to worry about long hours and overwork;all those that work long hours are happy to do so; employers are happy to tackle cases of abuse of the current regulations; trade unions are trying to argue for a rule that workers do not want; the UK economy needs long hours to succeed; small business rely on long hours to succeed; and globalisation requireslong hours.

Arguing against these ‘myths’ the TUC set out a number of facts and figures including: official reports into the health risks of long hours working, including evidence which indicates that those who regularly work more than 40 hours per week are likely to suffer an increased risk of heart disease, stress-related illness, mental illness and diabetes.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and other EU employment ministers will meet next week to discuss tighter controls on the use of the Working Time opt-out. These will be put forward to the European Commission in light of the vote by the European Parliament to phase out the opt-out within three years.

The European Commission has published plans to lift Britain’s opt-out from the Working Time Directive, sparking fury from business groups and the Government.

Business groups said that scrapping the opt-out and removing the right for people to work for more than 48-hours a week would undermine the UK’s flexible labour market and cause job losses. A Government spokesman vowed: “We are committed to protecting the opt-out.”

Unions, the EC and the European Parliament insist that the opt-out should be abolished in order to protect the health and safety of workers.

Trade and Industry secretary Alan Johnson is to negotiate with other EU employment ministers in Luxembourg today in an attempt to garner support to form a “blocking minority”. This is the only way of keeping the opt-out, as Britain has no right to veto the proposals.

The EC is demanding that the opt-out be phased out by 2012, and if Britain wants to retain it after this time, it must apply to the Commission. Such a request would however be unlikely to be granted, as the Commission said in a statement that it was “convinced that, with the new flexibilities provided for by the proposal, the opt-out will not be necessary any more”.

A spokeswoman maintained: “This proposal is very balanced between flexibility on one hand, and the health and safety of workers on the other.”

However, business representatives rejected this argument. Miles Templeman, director-general of the Institute of Directors, said: “It is essential we maintain a flexible labour market to allow us to compete with emerging economies.”

Nick Goulding, chief executive of the Forum of Private Business, said: “Ending the opt-out provision would seriously damage business in the UK, particularly small firms, and would put jobs at risk.”

On the other side of the fence, the TUC condemned the EC for granting Britain the right to request to keep the opt-out after 2012, claiming that the majority of those working over 48 hours a week are doing so against their will..

Three trainee midwives whose bursaries were stopped after they took time off to have children have won a landmark sex discrimination case establishing rights to maternity pay for many women studying to join NHS professions.

Clare Fletcher, Shelley Wilkinson and Tracey Parkes took maternity leave during full-time midwifery courses and were treated as though they had withdrawn from their studies, with their bursaries frozen or withdrawn.

The Employment Appeals Tribunal upheld their complaint of sex discrimination, with compensation yet to be decided.

Until 2000, student midwives and nurses were given full maternity rights as trainee employees, but such courses then became part of the higher education system in an attempt to make qualifications more academic. Trainees were then entitled to 60 days of sick leave but maternity rights were revoked.

Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison, said that the ruling set an important precedent for women training to join the NHS. “It seems incredible that the government could have allowed a system to continue which persecuted a group of women who were dedicated to providing care to mothers and babies,” he said. “You can be sick but not pregnant – what sort of message did that send out?”

The Department of Health said: “We know that family-friendly policies are important in encouraging people, particularly women, to consider a career in the NHS and are absolutely committed to making the NHS a flexible, family-friendly place to work.”

All employers have obligations under the Working Time Regulations (WTR) 1998 such as complying with the limit of an average of 48 hours for each seven-day period, the night worker’s average normal hours of work limit, the free and confidential health (and capacities) assessment requirements, the transfer of night workers to suitable day work and the record-keeping requirements.

1. The Working Time Regulations (WTR) 1998 do not only cover employees, but also cover other workers, e.g. a casual worker.
2. There are sectors that are not covered by the WTR 1998, e.g. air and rail transport and some workers who are or may be excluded from some of the provisions of the WTR 1998.
3. A worker’s average working time limit, including overtime, is 48 hours for each seven days.
4. A night worker’s average normal hours must not exceed eight hours for each 24-hour period.
5. A night worker whose work involves special hazards or heavy physical or mental strain must not actually work for more than eight hours in any 24-hour period.
6. An employer must ensure that a night worker will have the opportunity to have a confidential and free health assessment at regular intervals.
7. An employer must keep up-to-date records that show that they are complying with the requirements of the WTR 1998.
8. An adult worker is entitled to an uninterrupted rest period of not less than 24 hours in each seven-day period.
9. An adult worker is entitled to a daily rest break period of not less than 11 consecutive hours in each 24-hour period.
10. An adult worker is entitled to a rest break of least 20 minutes if their daily working time is more than six hours.
11. A worker is entitled to statutory paid holidays of four weeks in any holiday year.

Do you want to know more? Email peterwatson@lemac.co.uk

Many small business employers have stopped writing full references for ex-employees due to a fear of litigation, according to a new survey.

Specialist law firm Employment Law Advisory Services (ELAS) found that 90 per cent of SME owner-managers now refuse to provide traditional references, with one in five stating that they refuse to act as referees regardless of whether the employee was a good worker. Almost 70 per cent said that they will confirm only a former employee’s position, history and number of absences.

Pam Rogerson, employment law specialist at ELAS, commented: “The fear of litigation is now such that managers will not do or write anything which they fear may end up in court.

“The old style of written reference from a former employer used to be a firm’s best guide as to a candidate’s past character. But that is becoming a thing of the past as small businesses refuse to say anything they fear could come back to haunt them.”

Ms Rogerson claims that this is bad news for new employers as it will become more difficult to recruit candidates, who may then prove to be unsuitable for the job .

A quarter of employers have withdrawn at least one job offer in the last year after uncovering lies or half-truths on candidates’ CVs or application forms, according to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD).

The CIPD’s annual recruitment and retention survey found that nearly as many companies had dismissed employees for the same reason after the dishonesty was uncovered.

Of the 700 employers surveyed, with a total of 1.1 million staff, 11 per cent did not check the academic qualifications of job candidates, and 13 per cent did so rarely.

One fifth never or infrequently checked on absence records, and 23 per cent did not always take up references.

Homeless charity St Mungo’s is one organisation that has dismissed staff and withdrawn offers of employment within the last year. Pete Jeffrey, executive director of human resources, said that some candidates used agencies to provide references on demand.

There are five categories of reasons for dismissal which may be fair in law. The includes poor job performance, ill-health, misconduct and circumstances which may give rise to redundancy, as well as legal restriction and ‘some other substantial reason’ as reasons for dismissal. The impact of the statutory minimum dismissal and disciplinary procedures as contained in the Employment Act 2002, Sch.2, Pt 1 also needs to be taken into account.

In summary:

1. Potentially fair reasons for dismissal fall only under five categories namely capability, conduct, redundancy, legal restriction, and ‘some other substantial reason’ (SOSR).
2. Capability as a reason for dismissal is defined as ‘capability assessed by reference to skill, aptitude, health or any other physical or mental quality’.
3. Employers should distinguish between poor job performance caused by lack of capability and that caused by misconduct, so as to ensure correct procedures are followed prior to dismissal.
4. An employee whose illness is long-term or progressive may be protected under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and thus have the right not to be treated unfavourably on grounds related to their disability.
5. The law does not lay down specific timescales regarding how much absence from work justifies dismissal, nor is there a specified period of time after which it is fair to dismiss an employee who is ill and thus incapable of performing their job.
6. Gross misconduct is a single act of misconduct which is of such a serious nature that summary dismissal is warranted, even where no previous warnings have been given.
7. If management suspect, but cannot prove, that an employee is guilty of dishonesty or other misconduct, dismissal may be fair provided the employer genuinely believed the employee to have acted dishonestly, had reasonable grounds for such belief and carried out as much investigation as was reasonably possible.
8. A criminal offence committed outside the workplace in the employee’s own time may constitute a justifiable reason for dismissal, depending on whether and to what extent there is any connection between the offence and the person’s employment.
9. An employee’s drug problem due to the use of illegal drugs or the misuse of legally prescribed drugs may affect job performance and/or conduct at work and, depending on the circumstances, may be regarded as a capability or conduct issue.Legal restriction occurs where it becomes unlawful for an employer to continue to employ a particular employee, the most common instance being where a driver loses their driving licence.
10. ‘Some other substantial reason’ (SOSR) as a reason for dismissal is a ‘catch-all’ category providing employers with a way of fairly dismissing employees for substantial reasons that do not fall within any one of the other four categories.
11. Some dismissals are deemed to be automatically unfair in law, regardless of the surrounding circumstances or motives of the employer.

If you want to know more about any of these topics email peterwatson@lemac.co.uk

More than half of employees say that they have experienced symptoms of ‘burn out’ in the last six months, according to research from Hudson, the professional staffing specialist.

One third of employees reported that they had suffered from exhaustion, while 26 per cent had lost sleep or been sick from worry over work-related issues.

The Survey Shop polled over 1,000 employers and employees for Hudson, and some 92 per cent of employers acknowledged the existence of burn-out. However, only 35 per cent said that they thought it was a problem in their firm. Almost 60 per cent of employers said that they had no procedures in place to tackle the problem.

Almost half of employees said that symptoms of overwork and ‘burn-out’ had worsened in the last five years, blaming the increased pace of business life, increasing competition, and more demands on fewer staff.

Fourteen per cent of HR managers said that they had lost employees due to burn-out, while 36 per cent had seen productivity decline and 79 per cent had experienced an increase in absence taken.

Commenting on the consequences of ‘burn-out’, John Rose, chief executive of Hudson, said: “For employers, an increase in absenteeism, premature career change and a decline in interest and productivity among employees can have a serious long-term effect on businesses success.”