UK employers remain unprepared for new age discrimination regulations, research suggests.

From October 1, 2006, companies must ensure that all aspects of the employment process including recruitment, training and development, promotion, redundancy and retirement are ‘age neutral’.

Research by law firm Eversheds and Cranfield School of Management however, reveals that only 20 per cent of firms have done any preparation at all for the new legislation, while a further 20 per cent believe that their board is not committed to wiping out ageism.

“The main problem is that age discrimination in the UK seems to be a natural state of mind,” said Shaun Tyson, professor of HR management at Cranfield School of Management. “There are very deep and ingrained attitudes among managers. There is also the common notion of ‘attributional bias’, such as linking a lack of physical fitness with senility.”

Sam Mercer, director of the Employers Forum on Age, stressed that it is not only older workers who can suffer age discrimination: “Age discrimination is unique in discrimination legislation because it can affect anybody of any age,” she said. “In fact, if the assumption is that it’s all about older people, employers may become so busy focusing on not discriminating against the over fifties that they will miss out on ensuring younger people don’t suffer.”

“Employers have until October to make ageism as bad as sexism or racism. If you think about how culturally acceptable ageism still is, this is a huge task. You can have the best policies in the world, but if a manager isn’t implementing them properly, you’ll get into trouble,” she added.

Independent, February 2, 2006

HR professionals view workplace stress reduction as the least important issue affecting their work, a poll suggests.

The survey, conducted amongst attendees at HSA seminars during 2005, revealed that, while compliance with health and safety legislation and promoting employee wellbeing were viewed as top concerns for HR professionals, stress management was seen as the least important.

“Stress is estimated to cause over 13 million sick days each year, and costs employers a staggering £3.7 billion. Despite this, it appears that the issue has still not moved up the HR agenda,” commented Suzanne Clarkson, head of corporate marketing at HSA. “We are concerned that either companies are still unaware that stress is such a serious problem or they do not know that there are solutions available that could help.”

HSA press release, February 10, 2006

Parliament has approved regulations that will remove the “partly unmeasured working time” exemption from the Working Time Regulations 1998 (SI 1998 1833).

The Working Time (Amendment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006 99) revoke Regulation 20(2) of the 1998 Regulations.

Reg 20(2) currently applies to workers who have an element of their working time pre-determined; for example, by their contract of employment, but who voluntarily work longer hours.

Under Reg 20(2), the additional voluntary hours are disregarded from the purpose of some of the protections offered by the 1998 Regulations. This mean that restrictions on weekly working time and night working do not apply in respect of the additional hours.

The 2006 Regulations revoke Reg 20(2) thereby removing this exemption as of April 6, 2006.

The lawfulness of Reg 20(2) was due to be considered by the European Court of Justice in the case of Commission v UK (C-484/04) where the European Commission argues that the UK Government has not adequately implemented rights to daily and weekly rest breaks, and that Reg 20(2) goes further than the limited derogation allowed by the Working Time Directive (2003/88). The amendment to the 2006 Regulations suggests the Government has conceded the derogation issue and the case will proceed solely on the question of rest breaks.

IDS press release, February 7, 2006

Employers must focus on making reward packages fair, the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development (CIPD) has warned.

According to research by the CIPD, just 41 per cent of organisations include fairness as an objective in their reward strategy, despite the impact that notions of fairness can have on employee engagement and contribution levels.

Employers need to be flexible in the reward packages and tailor them to their company’s own unique culture and business objectives, the CPID says.

Charles Cotton, CIPD Reward Adviser, said: “Good pay and benefit packages can attract people to an organisation, retain staff and motivate them. Research shows that a diverse workforce can compliment these benefits through increased productivity and performance, but managed badly, efforts to improve diversity can create conflict and tension in the workplace.

“Reward and diversity professionals need to work together to align the two strategies to achieve fair reward. They must make sure that pay and benefits are determined by the relevance against job-related criteria. Most jobs are subject to change and growth therefore it is imperative that employers track changes by reviewing job descriptions regularly. It is not going to matter how good the salaries and benefits are if companies then fail to manage employees in a fair manner.”

CIPD, February 2006

The Department of Trade and Industry has published the responses received to its consultation on the draft revised Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employees) Regulations.

The final version of the regulations, which safeguard employees’ rights when the business in which they work changes hands between employers, will be published on the DTI website this week.

The TUPE regulations are due to come into force on April 6, 2006.

Copies of the consultation responses are available from http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/tupe_govtresponse_feb06.pdf and official guidance notes on the new regulations from http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/individual/tupeguide2006regs.pdf

Department of Trade and Industry, February 10, 2006

The Government would like to see the administration of statutory sick pay (SSP) simplified for employers as part of a major shake-up of how the state deals with people who are too ill to work.

In a Welfare Reform Green Paper published on 24 January the Government announced a number of proposals to accomplish this. The Government would like to see an end to:

• linking periods of incapacity for work (PIW), i.e. when there are 56 days or less between the end of one PIW and the start of a new one;
• linking PIW with those of a previous employer;
• waiting three working days before an employee can start receiving SSP;
• linking current claims for SSP with previous payments of incapacity benefit;
• the current complex percentage threshold scheme.

These proposals would enable employers to look at each period of an employee’s absence in isolation. As soon as SSP is triggered, i.e. there are four or more consecutive days that the employee cannot work, all an employer will need to do is to keep simple records that show SSP was paid, or occupational or contractual sick pay was at least equal to the employee’s SSP entitlement for that PIW.

At the moment, although about 90% of all employers have some kind of occupational sick pay scheme, that is often more generous than SSP, employers still have to keep complex records to show they have at least met an employee’s entitlement to SSP. These records must also record up to 28 weeks’ of SSP, in either one or a number of linked PIW, when the employee should be transferred to incapacity benefit. These SSP records are mostly complicated by the implications of linking PIW. Under these new proposals, it seems an employee would have to be off for a straight 28 weeks before a claim to incapacity benefit would be triggered.

Department for Work and Pensions, February, 2006

A Midlands Chamber of Commerce claims that it has persuaded the Government to amend proposed legislation on maternity leave.

The Work and Families Bill will extend the length of time that maternity leave is paid, as well as altering the extent of paternity leave.

Coventry and Warwickshire Chamber of Commerce lobbied MPs to ensure that smaller firms would not be overlooked when the legislation is introduced; minister for employment Gerry Sutcliffe has written to local MP Jim Cunningham to say that the Chamber’s comments have been taken into account.

In the letter, Mr Sutcliffe said: “As a result of extensive consultation with business we will increase the period of notice those coming back from maternity leave must give if they change their plans from 28 days to two months to enable employers to plan around a mother’s return to work.

“We will enable improved contact between mothers and their employers during the maternity leave period – including introducing optional ‘Keeping In Touch’ days. We will also be clarifying that employers may make reasonable contact with their employee during maternity leave.”

Stephen Docherty, chamber policy officer, said: “We are very pleased that our comments have been taken on board. We are at pains to lobby on behalf of our members and this shows it works. It is clear the law regarding maternity and paternity leave needs to be looked at, but the fact we have made the feelings of the business community known means it should be favourable and sensible for both employer and employee.”

icBirmingham, February 8, 2006

The caps on payments and awards made to workers in employment rights cases have been increased in line with inflation.

The increased levels will apply to cases where the event giving rise to the entitlement to compensation occurs on or after February 1, 2006.

The revised limits affect:

• statutory redundancy payments;
• the basic and compensatory awards for unfair dismissal;
• the limit on guarantee payment made when employees are not provided with work;
• the minimum basic award for unfair dismissal in health and safety and certain other cases.

Copies of the new order are available from www.opsi.gov.uk

Department of Trade and Industry press.

A list of employment regulations and legislative changes due to come into force in 2006 has been published by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI).

The list focuses on the common commencement dates of April 6 and October 1.

On April 6 the Government intends to:

• introduce minor amendments to the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004 (SI 2004 3426);
• revise the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to implement changes under the EC Acquired Rights Directive.

On October 1 the Government intends to:

• introduce age discrimination legislation;
• make the annual revision to the National Minimum Wage;
• extend the scope of the statutory resolution procedure;
• extend maternity and adoption leave to nine months and make other Work and Families changes;
• make minor amendments to the law on collective redundancies.

The full list of changes can be found at http://www.dti.gov.uk/ewt/common_comence.pdf

DTI press release, January 27, 2006

The Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC) has called for an urgent debate on the implications of increasing the state pension age.

The call follows an announcement by the Pensions Secretary, John Hutton, that a rise in the state pension age from 2020 is “inevitable”.

Gareth Osborne, the director of the REC, said: “An increase in the state pension age will only be workable if there are viable employment opportunities for those who want them. Flexible working options such as part-time and temporary work will become increasingly important, which is another reason for ensuring that any future UK or EU employment regulations do not have a negative impact on this flexibility.”

Recruitment practices would also have to change and recruitment professionals should lead the way in helping to change employers’ attitudes to older workers,” Mr Osborne continued.

“The recruitment industry has a vital role to play in challenging some of the pre-conceptions that may still exist amongst some employers about recruiting older workers,” he said. “The REC monthly Report on Jobs confirms that there continues to be a high demand for staff in a number of sectors and professional recruiters will be pivotal in effectively matching older workers with suitable opportunities.”

REC press release, February 9, 2006

A supervisor has received over £7,000 for unfair dismissal by a metal delivery firm attempting to slash its costs by £100,000.

Joseph Morgan, of Dudley, had to pay a private medical insurer £760 to complete treatment on a shoulder injury after he lost his corporate membership following the loss of his job.

Mr Morgan worked for J and L Industrial Supply for seven years, working his way up from a warehouse worker to supervisor.

A Birmingham Employment Tribunal heard that three workers were told they were losing their jobs. Mr Morgan complained that he had been unfairly selected, and had offered to do other work with the firm for a reduced salary.

“I was not given any proper consultation about the loss of my job,” he said.

Tribunal chairman Charles Goodier commented: “Mr Morgan was a qualified forklift truck driver and had been willing to be demoted in an attempt to stay with the firm. But no effort was made to find him another job.

“The firm also committed a classic error of failing to carry out the correct procedure in dismissing Mr Morgan.”

icCannock, February 2, 2006