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

A new streamlined taxes management act and a better service for business are two of HM Revenue & Customs goals for the future.

On November 28, HMRC said that aims, by 2010/11, to ensure that businesses:

• provide information only once;
• spend less time dealing with inspections;
• benefit from a range of flexible payment options;
• enjoy a single point of contact with HMRC;
• benefit from clear and targeted support, education and guidance at the time they need it most.

For example, in the area of compliance inspections, HMRC is developing a questionnaire to capture the experiences and concerns of those businesses subject to HMRC audits and inspections, with a view to using that information to identify priority areas for improvement. Over the next three years HMRC’s audit and inspection regime will be better targeted towards those businesses which present a high risk of non-compliance. Greater use is also to be made of technology to help HMRC and business share information electronically with the hope of delivering savings of at least 20 per cent in the time that it takes to settle an enquiry.

On the same day, HMRC also published details of its plans to introduce a new management act (to replace, for example, the Taxes Management Act 1970). This will bring together in one place the rules for the main taxes, including VAT, corporation tax, income tax (self-assessment), income tax (PAYE) and National Insurance contributions, and NICs paid by the self-employed. Where possible, the rules concerning, for example, time limits, returns, claims, assessments, payments and appeals will be aligned. This will deliver clear benefits for businesses that have encountered differences and inconsistencies between the administrative rules for the different tax schemes.

A new management act will deliver a modern, simpler and more consistent legislative framework for the administration of taxes, which is easier both for taxpayers to understand and comply with and for HMRC to operate.

HMRC press release, December, 2006

New legislation to punish companies whose negligence leads to the death of an employee or customer look set to be introduced after being included in the Queen’s Speech.

The Corporate Manslaughter and Homicide Bill, carried over from the last parliamentary session, will create a new offence of corporate manslaughter in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and of corporate homicide in Scotland.

The new offence would apply to corporations and public bodies and would introduce unlimited fines for deaths which follow a serious failing by senior managers. Individual directors would not be personally liable but the courts will be able to examine a wider range of management conduct than previously.

The Institution of Occupational Health and Safety welcomed the inclusion of the Bill. “Improved corporate accountability is vital to improving health and safety standards,” said the group’s president Neil Budworth.

“This Bill must go through promptly and without unnecessary delay and there must be strong leadership and guidance from the Government through its
remaining stages.”

BBC News, November 15, 2006

The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) has
issued advice for employers planning Christmas parties to help minimise the risk of employment tribunal claims.

ACAS receives hundreds of queries each year from organisations concerned about their responsibilities when throwing staff parties and has drawn up some questions and answers covering some of the more common issues:

Q. We usually allow our social club to sell raffle tickets for prizes which are given out at the Christmas party – surely there’s no problem with this?
A. Generally, no. However, some religions forbid gambling so no pressure should be exerted on staff who don’t want to take part. It’s also worth ensuring that the prizes on offer are not going to be unacceptable to those who do not drink alcohol or eat meat.

Q. What if an employee who has clearly drunk too much at the office Christmas party is planning to drive home. It’s not my responsibility, is it?
A. In fact, it is. As an employer you have a ‘duty of care’ toward your employees and as it’s the company’s party, you need to take some responsibility.

Think about travel arrangements and maybe end the party before public transport stops running. Or provide the phone numbers for local registered cab companies and encourage employees to use them. Hiring minibuses to take staff home is another option which would probably be greatly appreciated.

Q. If an employee suffers verbal abuse about being gay at the local pub before the party – it’s not on work premises so it’s a matter for them, isn’t it?
A. Wrong – going to the pub before the office party counts as an extension of work and so all the laws covering discrimination still apply. Make sure the company has policies in place on bullying and harassment and discrimination and that everyone knows what they are and what the penalties are for ignoring them.

Rita Donaghy, ACAS chairman, said: “If companies have policies and procedures in place which cover the key issues like discipline and grievance, bullying and harassment, discrimination and absence they are in a much better position to handle these sorts of issues which can happen at any time, not just at Christmas.

“But don’t let potential hazards put you off organising something for Christmas. Staff will feel valued if you treat them right. Think about asking them what they want to do and ask for suggestions on how to cater for any problems upfront.”

ACAS press release, November 16, 2006

HM Revenue & Customs has been given leave to appeal the High Court judgment in Revenue & Customs Commissioners v Thorn Baker Ltd [2006] (CH/2006/APP/220) to the Court of Appeal.

The Thorn Baker ruling means that Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) is not payable to agency workers whose contract with the agency is for a specified period of three months or less.

The social security legislation had been changed to allow agency workers to get SSP. However, due to the way the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2034), reg.19 were drafted, it had the affect of excluding short-term agency workers from the change in entitlement to SSP included in Schedule 2 of the 2002 Regulations.

Whilst HMRC is awaiting the appeal, they have reminded agency businesses that their workers can become entitled to Statutory Sick Pay if, in a single contract:

• they work longer than the original period specified and the total period actually worked exceeds three months, or;
• the contract is extended for more than three months.

Agency workers whose contracts are for three months or less can also become entitled to SSP if two or more such contracts with the same agency are separated by eight weeks or less, (56 days) and:

• the total length of the contracts is more than 13 weeks;
• the total period actually worked becomes more than 13 weeks; or
• the contracts are extended so that together they can run for more than 13 weeks.

The above is the situation that used to apply to agency workers in the past.

So all HMRC has done is to reinstitute their previous guidance in the light of agency workers unfortunately ending up being excluded from the changes to the legislation that allowed employees with less than three months’ service on a short-term contract to be entitled to SSP.

HMRC acknowledges that current guidance in help books E14 & E14 Supplement on treatment of Agency Workers is inconsistent with the High Court decision in Thorn Baker. No changes will be made to this guidance pending the decision of the Court of Appeal

Please also note that the High Court ruling applies to agency workers only. Other short-term contract workers are unaffected and remain entitled to SSP.

HM Revenue and Customs, November, 2006

Approximately 45,000 public bodies will be affected by new legislation introduced on 4 December that is set to transform the lives of one in five Britons.

The new Disability Equality Duty (the DED) will affect the way public authorities run and plan their services for the 10 million people who have rights under the Disability Discrimination Act. The DED is similar to the race equality duty introduced by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act.

The Disability Rights Commission (DRC) had been urging the government to introduce the new duty since 2000.

The DRC’s Chairman Bert Massie said today:

“The Disability Equality Duty will have a major impact on the lives of disabled people and will radically shift the way public authorities deliver their services.

“Public bodies – from the local library to the NHS – will have to consider what disabled people need when planning their services. This is a step-change away from individual disabled people having to complain about discrimination after an incident has taken place.”

The new duty has been introduced to tackle the endemic discrimination faced by disabled people and those with long-term health conditions. For example, disabled people are less likely to receive a full education, less likely to get a job, more likely to be discriminated against in the health service and to be a victim of crime than
non-disabled people.

DRC Chairman Bert Massie continued:

“The DED will help public bodies become more efficient and save money because it involves providing services that disabled people need. Those who fail to meet their new legal duties risk facing us
in court.

“Ensuring that disabled people’s needs are thought of at the beginning of policy and service development will help enhance the service that many disabled people receive. Next February, the DRC is unveiling a new agenda aimed at breaking the cycle of persistent exclusion and discrimination that still blights many disabled people’s lives.”

Publicly funded organisations with specific duties under the DED need to publish a Disability Equality Scheme that shows how they intend to fulfil the new duty. The scheme – which has to be published by 4 December – needs to show how a public body intends to eliminate unlawful discrimination and promote equality of opportunity. The DRC will be scrutinising these schemes from 5 December 2006.

A Muslim woman who claimed that her boss made discriminatory remarks about her decision to convert to Islam has won her employment tribunal case.

Caroline Elgedawy, an employee at Lincoln insurance firm Hanover Park Commercial, took the firms chief executive, Andy Halstead, to the tribunal after he branded her refusal to eat non-halal meat “pathetic”. Following a four day hearing the tribunal ruled that Mrs Elgedawy had suffered discrimination.

“Mr Halstead has a propensity to make remarks that some may find offensive,” the tribunal chairman, Martin Warren, said. “She has been treated unfavourably, but we are not saying that this is a racist organisation.

“Sadly, in these troubled times that we live in, commitment to diversity and equal treatment of fellow citizens is no guarantee that inappropriate views might be held or expressed about another’s faith.”

The tribunal ruled that the firm had discriminated against Mrs Elgedawy by failing to investigate fully her complaint in a “timely manner”. Her claims that she had been refused a pay rise, had her annual bonus cut and a company pool removed as a result of making the complaint were rejected.

The hearing was adjourned to a later date to consider how much compensation Mrs Elgedawy should receive.

BBC, November 16, 2006

There are fundamental differences in what motivates men and women in the workplace, new research suggests.

A study by management consultancy Hay Group reveals significant gaps in the motivation and ambition levels of men and women. While challenging and interesting work topped the workplace wishlist for both sexes, other factors such as work-life balance and the quality of working relationships proved to be much more important for women than men. Twice as many women as men chose “empowering others” as a key motivating factor but this was reversed when it came to “directing others”, which twice as many men singled out.

Men are also far more likely to be doing their ideal job: two thirds of male employees said that their role is well matched to their skills and abilities, compared with just two fifths of women.

“The workplace is no longer the preserve of men, but the legacy of the male-dominated workforce may be affecting women’s prospects,” said Emmanuel Gobillot, Hay Group director. “Our research suggests that the job roles we create, values we prize and training we provide still fail to motivate women to the same degree
as men.”

“This is leaving close to half of the workforce worryingly de-motivated – which is having a damaging effect on productivity,” she added.

Hay Group press release, November 23, 2006

A woman wounded in the July 7 bombings who was sacked after returning to work, has won the right to bring an unfair dismissal claim against her employers.

Nattashar Gittens has suffered from pelvic injuries, hearing problems, insomnia and bouts of depression since she was caught up in a blast in Tavistock Square.
She took two months off work before returning to her job as a receptionist at London recruitment consultants James Harvard International.

On her return to work the company allowed Ms Gittens to work flexible hours to avoid taking public transport during the rush hour, but she said that she was still expected to carry out physically demanding tasks, including lifting heavy boxes.

She was subsequently fired for poor performance and is claiming unfair dismissal under the Disability Discrimination Act.

James Harvard International maintains that it treated her with “patience and sympathy”.

BBC News, November 29, 2006

One long-standing point of debate about the Part-time Worker Regulations has been the position of a worker who does not work Mondays; is there any right to claim something in relation to Bank Holidays which he or she would not have worked anyway?

The text in DIVISION A has always given the cautious advice that if an employer wanted to give some form of in lieu payment to a non-Monday part-timer, that itself would not be unlawful discrimination against a full-timer because (unlike sex and race discrimination) these Regulations do not give any correlative rights to full-timers.

Now, however, the Scottish EAT have gone further and held that there is no discrimination against the part-timer if nothing is given for Bank Holidays. In a short and commendably to-the-point judgment, Lady Smith pointed out that the logic of the tribunal was impeccable, i.e. that the reason this individual got nothing for Bank Holidays was that he did not work Mondays – as simple as that. The discrimination point was dealt with by emphasising that (a) any less favourable treatment must be on the grounds of being part-time and (b) as a hypothetical comparator can be used, the lack of discrimination can be shown by the fact
that a full-timer not working Mondays (e.g. working Tuesdays to Saturdays) would also not receive anything in respect of Bank Holidays.

It will be interesting to see how part-timers will be dealt with when the government exercise its power under the Work and Families Act 2006 s 13 Q [1420] to add the equivalent of Bank Holidays to the four weeks’ statutory holiday entitlement under the working-time legislation (apparently to be done in stages between October 2007 and 2009).

More than 50 per cent of employers expect to experience difficulty coping with new rights for working mothers and fathers, according to a survey by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) and the accountancy firm KPMG.

The Work and Families Act 2006, in force from April 2007, extends maternity and adoption pay from six to nine months and extends the right to request flexible
working to carers of adults. In addition, the Act enables the Government to introduce a right for fathers to up to 26 weeks’ additional paternity leave and the extension of maternity pay to 12 months.

The survey found that:

• only around 10 per cent of employers think that any of the provisions of the Act will be beneficial to their business, with smaller firms more likely than larger companies to cite potential difficulties and less likely to see potential benefits;
• 64 per cent of employers think that the paternity leave provisions will cause them either some (48 per cent) or significant (16 per cent) difficulties;
• 57 per cent of employers think that the maternity and adoption pay provisions will cause them difficulties;
• only 4 per cent of employers think that the new right for carers to request flexible working will cause them significant
  difficulties, with 36 per cent expecting some difficulty; 35 per cent are strongly in favour of extending this right to all employees;
• 51 per cent of employers consider
  themselves either well prepared or very well prepared to implement the provisions of the Act.

Mike Emmott, a CIPD employee relations adviser, said: “These results do not necessarily indicate hostility to the Work and Families Act. Most good employers recognise the importance of work/life balance and, as the CIPD/KPMG survey shows, many already offer more than what is provided for in the WFA 2006.

“However, it is clear from the survey that there is evident scepticism about some of the WFA provisions, especially those relating to paternity leave, and concern about the difficulties that might arise in meeting them. It is possible that such reservations simply reflect the caution with which employers tend to embrace any new regulations. But the Government needs to reassure employers about the administration of the new provisions.”

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, November 24, 2006

The Trades Union Congress (TUC) is urging the Government to give agency workers the same rights as directly employed staff, from day one of their assignment with an employer.

Currently employers are under no obligation to offer agency workers the same pay and basic working conditions as permanent staff and temporary staff are often employed on much lower rates of pay and under less favourable terms and conditions.

As discussions over an EU Temporary Agency Directive continue in the run up to the Social Affairs Council in early December, the TUC is calling on the Government to do all it can to encourage the EU to sign up to this Directive which would offer additional protection for temps. One issue still under discussion in Europe is whether agency workers should benefit from equal treatment rights from their first day in the job.

Recent official figures show that if agency workers were only given equal rights to the same basic working conditions as directly employed staff after 12 months, nearly three quarters would miss out. If the qualifying period was set at six months, over half of temporary workers would still not be eligible for these rights. And a three month qualifying period would automatically exclude a quarter of all agency workers.

TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: “Agency workers regularly earn less than directly employed staff, are not allowed to benefit from an employer’s contributions to a pension scheme, are given less holiday, little if any access to training, and tend to get no contractual sick pay.

“Too many employers are replacing permanent staff with reasonable terms and conditions with badly paid, insecure agency staff. Far from providing a bridge to permanent work, this runs the risk of creating a whole underclass of temporary workers who cannot get permanent work and who have no loyalty to their employers.”

Source: TUC press release, November 9, 2007