June 2015 - Page 6 of 11 - The HR Company

State Pension Changes Effective January 2014

There is no single fixed/mandatory retirement age (age at which you must retire) for employees in Ireland. Typically, an employee’s retirement age is set out in their Contract of Employment and this can vary from one company/industry to the next. Alternatively, precedent/established custom and practice within the Company can determine the retirement age of its employees. E.G: if Mary was forced to retire at the age of 62 then Jack should also have to retire upon reaching the same age (assuming the circumstances are the same and that Mary was not ill, for instance).

Retirement, State Pension, Increase in pension age Contracts provided by employers to their employees usually incorporate a mandatory retirement age (Normal Retirement Date/NRD). This tends to make it compulsory for the employee to retire at a certain age, usually this is somewhere between the ages of 60 and 65. Most contracts also include some sort of provision for early retirement on ill-health grounds etc.

In certain occupations there is a state-imposed compulsory retirement age. This arises for members of An Garda Síochána and members of the Defence Forces, for instance. Gardaí are forced to retire from their roles by the age of 60.

General Practitioners are obliged to retire from the General Medical Services scheme when they reach the age of 70. They may, however, continue to practice privately if they are approved by the Medical Council – the Medical Council will ensure that they meet their fitness to practice criteria.

There is no set retirement age when a person is self-employed, similarly, unless specifically set out in the Company’s Articles of Association, Company Directors are not usually bound by a maximum working age either.

Contract, Retirement Age Interestingly, employers are allowed to set minimum recruitment ages provided that the minimum age is 18 or under.

The most common company retirement age is 65 and, until recently, people went straight from receiving their salary from the company to receiving a pension from the State (provided they paid enough PRSI contributions during their working life). The Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2011, however, legislated for certain changes to the pensions system in Ireland effective from 1^st January 2014. The State Pension (Transition) has been discontinued for new claimants from 1^st January 2014. As a result, the State Pension minimum age has been increased to 66 years for all. It will increase to 67 years in 2021 and to 68 years in 2028.

What this means is that:

If a person was born between 1^st January 1949 and 31^st December 1954 inclusive, the minimum qualifying State Pension age will be 66 (rather than 65).
If a person was born between 1^st January 1955 and 31^st December 1960 inclusive, the minimum qualifying State Pension age will be 67.
If a person was born on or after 1^st January 1961 the minimum qualifying State Pension age will be 68.

Bridge the gap

When asked, in 2011, about the changes to the State Pension the Minister for Social Protection, Joan Burton, said:

“Given the changes to State pension age and the other proposals in the Framework, both employees and employers must be encouraged to change their attitudes to working longer. In the workplace employers must seek to retain older employees and create working conditions which will make working longer both attractive and feasible for the older worker. Where this is not possible and people leave paid employment before State pension age they will be entitled to apply for another social welfare payment until they become eligible for a State pension”.

The Transition Pension will not be payable to anyone who reaches 65 years of age after 1^st January 2014. Instead, individuals will have to apply for Jobseeker’s Allowance and should be entitled to receive this payment until they become eligible for the State pension. Jobseeker’s Allowance is considerably less per week than the pension is (€188 compared to €230.30).

Employees due to retire from their jobs upon reaching the age of 65 may not be able to afford to do so for another year unless they are able to access savings, draw down a private pension or unless their employer graciously extends the retirement age. To date there is no obligation on employers to increase the retirement age or to somehow bridge the gap financially however, employers nationwide may find themselves receiving requests to increase the retirement age for employees.

Pension, Retirement Age

Please note that if an employer wishes to increase the contracted retirement age he or she is still obliged to consult the employee in relation to same as written consent is required to change the terms and conditions of employment.

By The HR Company Administrator|2017-01-02T11:00:02+00:00June 17th, 2015|Policies & Procedures|0 Comments

Equality Officer Awards €40,000 in Gender Discrimination Case

Equality Officer Awards €40,000 to Anne Delaney in response to complaint made against the Irish Prison Service. Anne Delaney took a case against the Irish Prison Service because she was discriminated against by her employer on the grounds of gender in relation to promotion, training and conditions of employment. In 2011, Ms. Delaney referred a complaint against her employer under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2008 to the Equality Tribunal. She alleged that the Irish Prison Service discriminated against her on grounds of gender when she applied for numerous posts over several years. Junior or less suitable/less experienced male candidates were appointed to the roles ahead of Ms. Delaney on all occasions.    

After reviewing all of the submitted evidence, the Equality Officer was satisfied that the complainant, Ms. Delaney, had established a link between the incidents that she complained about. The Equality Officer considered the incidents as separate manifestations of the same disposition to discriminate. The Equality Officer criticised the lack of transparency stating that she was unsure of the fairness of the selection procedures that were followed. There were no marking schemes available for review and no records to help her to assess what grounds the hiring decisions were based on. It also became apparent that the same senior personnel were involved in the selection process for all posts.

The Equality Officer’s investigation of the complaint concluded that the Irish Prison Service discriminated against Ms. Delaney on gender grounds when she applied for a gym instructor course in 2001, when she applied for an Operational Support Group post in 2009, when she was asked to step down from the post of Acting ACO in August 2010 and again in September 2010 when she applied for an allowance carrying post in the Detail Office.

As a result of her findings the Equality Officer tasked with making the decision on the case ordered that Ms. Delaney be appointed to the position of Acting ACO, and placed on the permanent roster for that position. The Equality Officer backdated this appointment to the 5th of August 2010 and ensured that all consequential employment rights and entitlements, including remuneration and recognition of service, were upheld.

The Equality Officer found that Ms. Delaney had been subjected to discrimination on the grounds of her gender on numerous occasions during her career with the Irish Prison Service. The Equality Officer considered a compensatory award of €40,000 to be just and equitable in response to the distress suffered by Ms. Delaney as a result of the discrimination that she suffered. The Equality Officer felt as though €40,000 was a proportionate, effective and dissuasive sum to award. That component of the award was not in the form of remuneration and, consequently, was not subject to the PAYE/PRSI Code.

The Equality Officer found that the Irish Prison Service’s selection process for the allowance carrying post in the Detail Office (a post applied for by Ms. Delaney in September 2010) was deficient and non-compliant with Equality Legislation. The Equality Officer ordered that the Irish Prison Service ensure that a fair selection process be adopted in all future selections. She also ordered that the selection panel must be trained in the process and that it must set down the criteria in writing before embarking on the selection process. The Equality Officer also ordered that a marking scheme must be adopted and that the weighting should be given under each element. She also directed that notes must be retained for future reference.

DEC-E2013-155

DECISION NO: DEC-E/2013/155

Anne Delaney Vs Irish Prison Service

FILE NO: EE/2011/292

DATE OF ISSUE: 19th of November, 2013

By The HR Company Administrator|2017-01-02T11:00:14+00:00June 17th, 2015|Compensation|0 Comments

Employers reducing salaries without consent

If a salary reduction is imposed without consultation or employee agreement, an employee now only has three (rather than four) potential legal opportunities to seek redress from his or her employer. If an employee’s wages are cut his or her first option is to claim Constructive Dismissal under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1997-2007. Constructive Dismissal is the term used when an employee terminates his or her employment based on the conduct of the employer. In this instance, the employee must be able to prove that their position became unsustainable as a direct result of the involuntary reduction in pay. Secondly, where an employee’s salary is reduced, he or she has the opportunity to bring a trade dispute under the Industrial Relations Acts. The Industrial Relations Acts deal with disputes between employers and workers that are connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms and conditions of or affecting the employment, of any person. Thirdly, if an employer cuts an employee’s pay, the employee could claim that their contract has been breached. Defending this could prove very costly for the employer. Furthermore, an injunction may be granted to prevent the contract breach/reinstate the original salary. Salary Reduction In the past employees whose wages were cut without prior consent had a fourth option. They had the opportunity to take a case (and were likely to succeed) under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. Claims in relation to a reduction in wages, however, may no longer be successful if taken under this Act as a result of a recent Employment Appeals Tribunal determination. The specific EAT case referenced here is an appeal of a Right’s Commissioner decision in the case of Santry Sports Clinic v 5 employees. The employees in the aforementioned case were claiming for an 8% reduction in their pay that was imposed between February and March 2010. Santry Sports Clinic stated that the reduction was essential. According to the employer, all employees received letters detailing the 8% reduction in advance and, while only 30% of employees agreed to the reduction via return letters, no one officially objected or stated that they would not accept the pay cut and so it was implemented as planned. The Employment Appeals Tribunal considered all evidence and representations made at the hearing as well as all other submissions made. The Tribunal noted the High Court decision in the case of Michael McKenzie and others and Ireland and the Attorney General and the Minister for Defence Rec. No. 2009. 5651JR. In paragraph 5.8 of this decision the Judge stated that “the Payment of Wages Act has no application to reductions as distinct from ‘deductions’.” The Tribunal followed the High Court decision on a point of law and, therefore, the appeal was successful and the decision of the Rights Commissioner was entirely overturned in the case of Santry Sports Clinic v 5 employees. Reducing employee's pay This case brought to light the fact that the Payment of Wages Act 1991 refers to “deductions” as opposed to “reductions” and, as a consequence, employees whose wages are reduced without prior consent are now unlikely to succeed if they opt to take a case against their employer under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. This is particularly significant for claims that are currently being processed by the Employment Appeals Tribunal. Employers need to remember that, although this option has essentially been closed off for employees as a result of the above-mentioned High Court decision and the EAT case, they still have several avenues open to them if they wish to take a claim where a reduction of wages has been imposed by the employer without prior consent.

By The HR Company Administrator|2017-01-02T11:00:12+00:00June 17th, 2015|Policies & Procedures|0 Comments

Force Majeure Leave in the Irish Workplace

There are several types of leave that an employee may be entitled to. Some forms of leave are statutory entitlements and some other forms are not. Maternity Leave, for instance, must be given to employees when they are pregnant. Some forms of leave are paid and others are not. This can depend on statutory obligations and on the terms and conditions set out in the Contract of Employment. Annual Leave is a statutory entitlement and it must be paid by the employer. Sick Leave, however, is not always paid by the employer (this depends on individual company policies). Force Majeure Leave is less commonly discussed. The purpose of Force Majeure Leave is to provide limited, paid leave to enable an employee to deal with family emergencies resulting from injury or illness of a close family member. Force Majeure Leave applies where the immediate presence of the employee is urgent and indispensable (essential). A close family member is defined as one of the following:

A child or adopted child of the employee
The husband/wife/partner (same or opposite sex) of the employee
A parent/grandparent of the employee
A brother/sister of the employee
A person to whom the employee has a duty of care (where he or she is acting in loco parentis)
A person in a relationship of domestic dependency with the employee
Persons of any other class (if any) as may be prescribed

By its nature, an employee will not usually be able to give notice of the need to take Force Majeure Leave. The employee should, however, inform the employer (in writing) of reasons for taking the leave as soon as is reasonable practicable. The employee should provide details regarding the need for the leave and should confirm who the leave was taken in respect of. Employers are obliged to keep a record of Force Majeure Leave taken by employees. Employees will be entitled to: - up to 3 days paid Force Majeure Leave in any consecutive 12 month period; or - up to 5 days in a 36 consecutive month period. Absence for part of a day is usually counted as a full day of Force Majeure Leave. Employees are entitled to receive pay for this type of leave. Employers can grant employees more than the number of days outlined above; however, they are not obliged to do so. Employees are protected against Unfair Dismissal for taking Force Majeure Leave or for proposing to take it. Death is not covered under Force Majeure Leave – Leave taken when a death occurs falls under Compassionate Leave and this tends to depend on employee contracts as well as custom and practice within the workplace.

By The HR Company Administrator|2017-01-02T11:00:09+00:00June 17th, 2015|Policies & Procedures|0 Comments

On 17th September 2013 a former employee of a coach hire company referred his case under Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 to the Labour Court and agreed to be bound by the Recommendations of the Court.

  The case revolved around the alleged Unfair Dismissal of the claimant at his probationary meeting. An employee with less than 12 months’ service cannot avail of the protections offered by the Unfair Dismissals Acts, however, as this particular employee did, employees with less than 12 months’ service can refer a claim under the Industrial Relations Act as the amount of service is irrelevant in these instances. The employee claimed that he was made aware that he was being dismissed at the meeting but stated that no issues about his performance were raised at that time. The employee described how he was denied his right to appeal the decision as his employer either claimed to be “unavailable” or simply “failed to respond” to any correspondence relating to an appeal process. A Labour Court hearing was scheduled for, and took place on, January 10^th 2014. The employer, who was notified of the hearing, did not attend and did not appoint any representation to attend on his/her behalf. Given his opportunity to speak, the worker claimed that throughout the course of his probation, he was never told of any issues with his performance. He went on to describe how he was not afforded his right to query why he was dismissed and was not given any opportunity to appeal the decision made by his employers to terminate his employment at that time. As there was no representation on the part of the employer the employee’s claims went uncontested. With the evidence presented to it, the Court decided that the process used in deciding to dismiss the claimant fell short of the standards of fairness that a reasonable employer should exhibit. The Court, satisfied with the evidence of the claimant, ruled that he be compensated in the amount of €10,000. This figure was in full and final settlement of all claims arising from this dismissal. Award, Unfair Dismissal

The determination in this case should encourage all employers to ensure that they follow Labour Court approved procedures with extreme care when dismissing an employee - even when doing so during a probationary period. Employers should note from this case that all employees, including those who are dismissed during probation, are entitled to be afforded details of the reasons why they are being let go and should also be offered the right to appeal the decision to terminate. As should be the case all employees, even employees on probation, are entitled to natural justice.

By The HR Company Administrator|2017-01-02T11:00:15+00:00June 17th, 2015|Compensation|0 Comments

Searching Employee Belongings Appropriately

employee searches Many employers have experienced theft by an employee in the workplace and, consequently, need to put certain measures in place in order to protect the profits of the company. It is the policy of some companies to search employees’ personal belongings when they are leaving the work premises. Employers can also reserve the right to search employee lockers and vehicles if this is agreed with the employee in advance.   If the employer wishes to have the option to carry out personal searches then it is crucial that all details surrounding these searches are clearly communicated to the employees in the contract of employment. Employees sign this contract and by doing so agree to the policies and procedures contained therein. If an employer reserves the right to search an employee’s belongings then he or she must do so in a dignified manner – giving the employee appropriate levels of privacy. There are several significant procedures to observe when performing a personal search. The individual carrying out the search should be in a management position and, in the interest of clarity; the employees should be made aware in advance who it will be. The location of the search is also something that should be considered very carefully – it is important to maintain consistency and to carry out searches in an area that offers privacy to the employee involved. Employees should be notified of the location of the search and, ideally, it should be out of the view of customers and other employees. The shop floor is not appropriate search setting – the canteen is not suitable either. Ideally the area should be covered by CCTV in order to prevent a “he said she said” situation from arising. If this is not possible then a witness should be present so that this scenario is avoided. Either way discretion is of cardinal importance. theft in the workplace As is procedure with airline security screening a male should search a male and a female should search a female, although, as the searches should not involve body contact this is less of a priority. It is essential that the employee is asked to open his or her bag, for instance, and that the person performing the search doesn’t breach privacy by putting their hands into the employee’s bag or on the employee’s person. Employees should be asked politely to remove any suspicious items from their bag for further inspection – the item/items should be placed on a clear surface in order to ensure that there is no confusion over what was actually in the bag. The searching employee (management/security where possible) should never assume that an item has not been paid for. If the item in question was from the store then the employee should be asked to produce a receipt for same. Further action can be taken if the employee cannot furnish proof of purchase. When an employee purchases an item in the store during the working day it is good practice for companies to put in place a policy where the bag is sealed and the receipt is attached to the bag. This removes any ambiguity. Some companies will carry out spot checks on employee belongings rather than checking them on a daily basis – it is vital to be fair and to ensure that the same employees are not targeted all the time. Not following appropriate procedures can lead to employees being awarded large sums of money.

By The HR Company Administrator|2017-01-02T11:00:20+00:00June 17th, 2015|Policies & Procedures|0 Comments

Average Award in Unfair Dismissal Cases on the Rise

According to the Employment Appeals Tribunal Annual Report 2011 the number of cases annually referred to the Tribunal increased three fold during the Irish economic recession (to a high of 9,458 cases in 2009). The average number of annual referrals before the recession had plateaued at approximately 3,500. Statistics for Unfair Dismissals cases: The average compensation awarded by the Tribunal in Unfair Dismissal cases has risen dramatically in recent years. For the year ended 31^st December 2009 the average compensation in Unfair Dismissals cases was €11,476. In 2010 it was €16,064.05 and in 2011 it was €18,047.85. This is a trend that employers really need to pay attention to as large sums of money like this can seriously damage a company. It is crucial to stay up-to-date with employment legislation and to follow appropriate procedures when dealing with employee matters. Employment Appeals Tribunal, EAT, Compensation

By The HR Company Administrator|2017-01-02T11:00:20+00:00June 17th, 2015|Compensation|0 Comments

Why Companies are choosing to Outsource their HR

The number of cases annually referred to the Employment Appeals Tribunal increased three fold during the Irish economic recession and the average compensation awarded by the Tribunal in Unfair Dismissal cases rose from €11,476.00 to €18,047.85 between 2009 and 2011. During this time of economic hardship Employers must pay even closer attention than ever before to their expenditure. Many organisations are forced to downsize and - in this era of increased Employee Litigation - making sure you follow appropriate procedures in redundancy or disciplinary scenarios, for example, is growing in importance. It is at times like these that Companies need to concentrate on their Human Resource functions even more. Some elements of HR, however, can be both complicated and time consuming – an enormous burden on Employers. In recent years the focus has moved towards legal compliance (which can be a minefield with all of the pieces of Employment Legislation currently in operation) and administrative processes that can slow down the productivity of the firm.   For SMEs in particular, it makes a lot of business sense to outsource HR tasks as firms specialising in the field can improve efficiency dramatically. Outsourcing allows Companies to offload work that isn’t part of their core business. It also saves money. At a Company that doesn’t have the funds to hire specialists outsourcing can allow it to gain access to a vendor’s services when required as well as the expertise and wealth of experience that they have accumulated – all at an affordable price. While SMEs don’t have the same number of Employees as larger corporations and multinationals they still require the same HR elements on a smaller scale. For instance, they still need to recruit staff, they still need to abide by the vast array of Employment Laws and still require Employment Documentation (Contracts of Employment etc.).

Although some Companies do it, most SMEs cannot justify spending a large portion of their annual budget setting up a HR department comprehensive enough to incorporate the abundance of skills required to achieve a smooth-functioning, compliant working environment. Consequently, more and more Companies are choosing to outsource operations like HR and are directing vital, scarce, finances and resources towards other core/revenue-generating areas of the business.

On the other hand, some Employers end up trying to balance HR duties in addition to their other responsibilities which can leave opportunities for threats and vulnerabilities to creep in. As time goes by many Employers are realising that assigning a large percentage of their time to one area is not just inconvenient but impractical, too. Juggling all elements of a business without assistance can be extremely difficult and for this reason many Employers are opting for the cost-effective third party route which involves the use of an external HR Company. This gives them enhanced peace of mind and confidence that they are working within the confines of all Employment Legislation. Outsourcing Companies can deal with HR successfully and as a priority so that Employers do not have to concern themselves with the associated time constraints and conflicts. Companies can eliminate exposures they did not even know existed quickly and in a cost-effective manner by availing of the services of a HR Company. HR Companies deal with all features of Human Resources comprehensively. They have a base of specialist Employees who are trained and experienced in all areas of Employment Law – meaning they are fully equipped to deal with any Employee Relations issues that arise in the workplace. Engaging the services of HR professionals gives Employers access to a bank of relevant knowledge and experience. HR Companies are well prepared to support or advise SMEs without costing an arm and a leg. They keep up-to-date with all changes in Irish Employment Legislation and are able to offer better support and guidance than the client can attain in-house. Navigating Government regulations can be a draining activity for Employers, - it can be a time consuming and complicated process, however, it is what HR advisors are trained to do. HR firms can do a lot more than you might think – not alone do they have a top-class portfolio of skills, knowledge and experience concentrated in this specific area, they can offer a range of services and support at an extremely affordable price. Some HR Companies provide comprehensive services for as little as €100 per month – Hiring a HR Employee, even on a part-time basis, would cost far in excess of this. Similarly, many Employers currently engage the services of Solicitors to prepare Contracts of Employment and other Employment Documentation – this can also be an extremely costly process. HR Companies prepare Employment Documentation for their clients and on top of that are there to advise on all individual Employee related issues – discrimination claims, rest and annual leave entitlements, disciplinary and redundancy procedures, dismissals, grievances and much more. Lots of Companies operate outside of office hours and so some HR Companies even provide 24/7 advice lines for their clients meaning a client will never have an anxious wait for an answer. HR firms also provide support to existing HR departments within Companies - the level of service and associated costs are completely dependent on the needs of the individual Company. HR firms are growing in popularity. In the past outsourcing was often a difficult process because of the issues distance can sometimes create. Thanks to the advances in technology, however, dedicated HR experts are only a couple of clicks or a phone call away – so Human Resource emergencies can be dealt with on the spot.

By The HR Company Administrator|2017-01-02T11:00:21+00:00June 17th, 2015|Adoptive Leave|0 Comments

Dignity at Work – Workplace Racism at an Alarming Level

Employers - Did you know that you can be held accountable for bullying or harassment in the workplace? ……..Not being aware of it does not get you off the hook! Bullying in the workplace is any recurring inappropriate conduct that undermines a person’s right to dignity at work. Bullying can be carried out by one person or by several people - it is aimed at an individual or a group where the objective is to make them feel inferior or victimised. Bullying can come in the form of a verbal or physical assault and can also take place over the internet – this is known as cyber bullying and can be performed via many methods - Mobile phones, social networking sites, emails and texts are all common vehicles for cyber bullying. Cyber bullying is becoming more and more prevalent in society. Keep in mind that harassment based on civil status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, race, nationality or ethnic origin, disability or membership of the Traveller community is considered discrimination. Harassment in the workplace is prohibited under the terms of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2007. The Act of harassment - whether direct or indirect, intentional or unintentional - is unacceptable and should not be tolerated by any company. Any allegations should be dealt with seriously, promptly and confidentially with a thorough and immediate investigation. Any acts of harassment should be subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. Any victimisation of an employee for reporting an incident, or assisting with an investigation of alleged harassment and/or bullying is a breach of equality legislation and should also be subject to disciplinary action.   Dignity at work Bullying or harassment isn’t always obvious – in fact it can come in many shapes and forms – some examples are: •Social exclusion or isolation •Damaging someone’s reputation through gossip or rumour •Any form of intimidation •Aggressive or obscene language or behaviour •Repeated requests for unreasonable tasks to be carried out Employers Beware: Under current Irish employment legislation (The Employment Equality Acts 1998-2011) companies are accountable when it comes to bullying and harassment in the workplace or workplace disputes. It is vital for employers to be mindful of the legislation as companies are answerable for the actions of employees, suppliers and customers even in cases where the company is not aware that bullying or harassment is taking place. To defend itself a company must illustrate how it did everything reasonably practicable to prevent bullying and / or harassment from taking place in the workplace. The company must also show that when an instance of bullying or harassment occurred the company took immediate, fair and decisive action. There is a huge risk of exposure if companies do not adhere to the strict Regulations. Those found in violation of the Act may be liable for fines and in severe circumstances imprisonment on summary conviction. Companies can also end up paying out large sums in compensation. Bullying creates a very hostile work environment and can negatively affect employee performance – It can lead to disengagement and low levels of morale. It can also cause a company to lose key members of staff. Bullying can affect both the safety and the health of employees – this violates the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. It is abundantly clear that it is in the best interest of all stakeholders to prevent bullying or harassment of any form in the workplace. In order to avoid bullying and harassment an employer should include harassment-related policies and procedures in the Employee Handbook – A Dignity at Work Policy should be communicated clearly to employees. This will clarify what is expected of employees and what the protocol/repercussions are if bullying/harassment does occur. Racism, Dignity at work Last week the Immigrant Council of Ireland (ICI) brought our attention to a shocking statistic – The ICI revealed that the number of racist incidents reported in Ireland over the last 12 months had jumped to a staggering figure – They dealt with 120 individual racism cases in the past year. 52 of these instances were reported in June/July of 2013 alone marking a huge increase when compared to the same period in 2012 when just 3 incidents were reported. The racism reported related to alleged discrimination, written harassment, verbal harassment and physical violence. The most commonly reported setting for racism was the workplace – where a massive 20% of reported incidents occurred. Employers need to be vigilant and need to make more of an effort to consciously crack down on this type of activity.

By The HR Company Administrator|2017-01-02T11:00:21+00:00June 17th, 2015|Dignity at Work|0 Comments

Labour Court Ends Zero-Hours Contracts For HSE Home Helps

The Labour Court has issued a recommendation giving improved terms and conditions to Home Help workers employed by the Health Service Executive (HSE). Labour Court, HSE, Home Help The recommendation, which is binding under the terms of the Haddington Road Agreement, was issued on 18^th September, 2013, and will affect the employment terms and conditions of approximately 10,000 workers. It is important to note that this agreement only applies to Home Helps who are employed by the HSE. Individuals employed by private companies or not-for-profit providers are not covered by this Labour Court recommendation. Services Industrial Professional and Technical Union (SIPTU) has been campaigning since 2009 in a bid to secure adequate contracts and security of earnings for its members. The Union has welcomed the Labour Court decision which brings an end to the extensive system of zero-hour contracts. Paul Bell, SIPTU Health Division Organiser, stated that the agreement put the terms and conditions of Home Helps on a “firm and binding platform for the first time since the community service was established thirty years ago”. A Zero-hours contract is a type of employment where an employee must be available for work but does not have specified or guaranteed hours or a formal roster. This can cause challenging circumstances for employees where the hours of work as well as earnings are unpredictable. Home Help Contracts   This Labour Court agreement provides for the issuing of annualised contracts guaranteeing a minimum of seven to 10 hours of work per week for each Home Help. Caroline Jenkinson, Labour Court Deputy Chairman, explained that “the number of hours to be allocated to each person will be based on 80 per cent of their actual hours worked in the six-month reference period between October 1^st, 2011, and March 31^st, 2012, with a minimum guarantee of seven hours”.     In addition to welcoming the removal of the zero-hours system Mr. Bell of SIPTU applauded a HSE effort to reorganise and manage the Home Help hours on a county by county basis. Those who choose not to work under the annualised hour scheme may be entitled to receive compensation of between €2,000 and €3,000 under an exit deal.

By The HR Company Administrator|2017-01-02T11:00:21+00:00June 17th, 2015|Labour Court|0 Comments

Monthly Archives: June 2015