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).
The recommendation, which is binding under the terms of the Haddington Road Agreement, was issued on 18th 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.
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 1st, 2011, and March 31st, 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.
So far as is reasonably possible, employers are legally obliged to ensure the safety and welfare at work of all employees. Likewise, employees have a responsibility to themselves and to their colleagues. The use of alcohol and/or unauthorised drugs may disturb the safe and efficient running of a business. It can hinder the health and safety of employees within the organisation as well as the customers and other stakeholders.
Companies should operate a ‘zero tolerance’ policy when it comes to drugs and alcohol and
employees should not be permitted to work while under the influence of drugs or alcohol under any circumstances. Employees must adhere to all medically prescribed drug instructions and if the medication is likely to cause any side effects that could impair the employee’s levels of concentration or ability to carry out his or her work then he or she should communicate this to Management.
If an employee’s performance or attendance at work is affected as a result of alcohol or drugs, or the employer believes the employee has been involved in any drug related action/offence, disciplinary action may be required. Dismissal may be warranted in severe circumstances.
It should be clearly communicated to employees that anyone involved in the unlawful possession, use, sale or manufacture of controlled substances or illicit drugs etc. on Company premises, in Company vehicles/work sites or during working time will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. They should also be referred for prosecution.
Companies should also include a drug and alcohol testing policy in their employee handbook to improve their rights in these situations.
Smoking regulations for employees:
In line with statutory provisions companies are obliged to operate a strict smoke-free
workplace policy. Employers should make their employees fully aware that any member of staff who breaches this policy will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. It is imperative that employers enforce the law. 
Since 2001 The HR Company, B2E Ltd. has been successfully providing a cost-effective HR and advice support service(s) for small to medium sized businesses (SMEs) across Ireland. The HR Company also assists several large corporations and multinationals with their HR operations. With so many pieces of employment legislation in place in Ireland it is a challenge for companies to ensure that they are fully compliant on all counts. The HR Company is an Irish-owned company headed up by Philip Carney, former head of HR for Microsoft’s European Operations Centre, and Angela O’Grady, former Staffing and Recruiting Manager. A team of 20 HR specialists provide peace of mind for Employers by guiding them on all aspects of Irish Employment Law.
The HR Company provides a very affordable 24/7 protection service to those who wish to offload the burdens and risk associated with HR activities. Whether it relates
to disciplinary procedures, annual leave, redundancy or anything in between; a dedicated account manager is at the end of a phone to guide Employers and help insulate companies whenever a query about best practices in HR arises.
Not only does The HR Company provide bespoke employment documentation to ensure companies pass a National Employment Rights Authority (NERA) inspection, tailored disciplinary letters and any other relevant material are prepared by dedicated account managers to ease the load on the Employer. The HR Companyacts as the eyes and ears of the Employer on all HR related issues – protecting companies by keeping them informed on any relevant legislation updates.
In this era of increased employee litigation employees know their rights – companies should shield themselves against the risk of a costly dispute by arming themselves with the best on-call
support.
The legislation, which is due to be enacted in the autumn, closely reflects best practices in whistleblowing protection in developed nations around the world.
According to Minister Howlin the Bill “should instil all workers with confidence that should they ever need to take that decisive step and speak-up on concerns that they have about possible misconduct in the workplace, they will find that society values their actions as entirely legitimate, appropriate and in the public interest”.
Some key elements included in the Bill are as follows:
Compensation of up to a maximum of five years remuneration can be awarded in the case of an unfair dismissal that came about as a result of making a protected disclosure. This would be a massive step forward in Ireland’s attempt to match the standards set by other established nations.
It is important to note that limitations relating to the length of service that usually apply in the case of Unfair Dismissals are set aside in the case of protected disclosures.
As a result of this Bill whistleblowers will benefit from civil immunity from actions for damages and a qualified privilege under defamation law.
The legislation provides a number of disclosure channels for potential whistleblowers and stresses that the disclosure, rather than the whistleblower, should be the focus of the attention.
Protections for the whistleblower remain in place even where the information disclosed does not reveal any wrongdoing when examined. Deliberate false reporting, however, will not be protected.
These measures, when enacted, should encourage more people to come forward, and feel comfortable doing so, when they become aware of (or suspect) any criminal activity, misconduct or wrongdoing in the workplace.
The HR Company removes any complexity from the scenario. We take the guess-work out of decision making by surveying the marketplace and keeping you informed of everything you need to be aware of.
On top of salary compensation and benefits can include items such as a company car, bonuses, sales incentives like commission, extra paid time off, medical insurance, stock options and much more. It can be very difficult to stay on top of this HR function.
We take the headache out of the administration of compensation and benefits for you by providing you with a variety of specialised back-office services. These include everything from processing pension and medical plans to managing and organising your company’s Organisational Health Index.
Here is a list of some of the services we offer to assist companies with their compensation and benefits management:
•Pension/medical membership processing
•Salary survey, planning & administration
•Salary/Bonus/Stock system processing
•Company Car policy management
•Mortgage application processing
•Maternity/Parental Leave benefits
•Flexible benefits
•Advise on, manage and organise annual Benefits and Expo & Health Awareness Programme
•Manage & organise company OHI
•Manage Outplacement Programme
•Tailored generation of reports & statistics
Our goal is to ensure your HR functions run as smoothly as possible so that you can focus on the ensuring the other aspects of your business are running as smoothly as possible.
If you need guidance or support with benefit and compensation administration then look no further than The HR Company.
The employer, however, took a few moments to think about the request. He concluded that the employee had been a diligent worker and so was reluctant to see the employee leave his role. In the hopes that it might encourage the employee to consider changing his mind the employer decided to offer the employee a small pay rise and to be more flexible with him in terms of his working hours. After the employer made the offer the employee became frustrated and again asked the employer to fire him.
The employer was confused as to why the employee was so adamant that he wanted to be fired as he had always seemed quite satisfied in his role. The employer also wondered why the employee didn’t simply resign if he wanted to go so badly. The employer decided to seek some advice on the situation prior to making his final decision. After some research the employer realised that this request was a common one and that motives behind this type of request were typically financially-based ones.
If an employee leaves employment voluntarily and without a reasonable cause then he or she may be disqualified from getting Jobseeker's Benefit for 9 weeks, however, if the employee is dismissed from employment then he would be entitled to claim benefits earlier.
Social Welfare Fraud is a serious offense.
The employee became extremely angry when the employer refused to dismiss him. Had the employer satisfied the request and fired the employee the individual could have lodged a case for unfair dismissal. The employer was fortunate that he sought advice after receiving the request from the employee. Due to the fact that the employee had not done anything to warrant his dismissal it is likely that a claim would have succeeded in an Employment Appeals Tribunal scenario – Unfair Dismissal can lead to an award of up to 2 years’ salary.
Employers receiving requests along these lines should seek advice from Irish Employment Legislation specialists prior to taking any action.
Further clarification of what Employers need to know regarding LPT:
Any employee who has not yet paid, or started to pay, their applicable Local Property Tax (LPT) will have mandatory deduction at source from salary or pension imposed. Those who failed to submit their LPT return on time or failed to meet the relevant payment obligations by 1st July 2013 are under scrutiny.
Employers and occupational pension providers alike are obliged to ensure deduction at source. Revenue should have notified the employers/ pension providers of the outstanding sums via the P2Cs (The P2C is the employer copy of the tax credit certificate in respect of the individual employee).
The relevant sum is to be deducted from the employee’s net pay.
The employer is to commence deducting the LPT after receipt of the relevant P2C (after July 1st 2013). The relevant P2Cs should have been issued to most employers by mid June 2013. The LPT to be deducted is illustrated at the bottom of the P2C. The deductions must be made on a consistent basis over the 6 month period between July and December 2013. If the employee is paid weekly then the LPT deduction should be made weekly and if the employee is paid monthly then the deduction should be applied monthly.
For example if the LPT to be deducted is €300 then an employee who is paid weekly will see €300/26=€11.538 deducted from their weekly net salary (Any rounding should be in favour of the employee) - If an employee owing €300 is paid monthly then he or she is due to pay €300/6=€50 on a monthly basis.
Any refunds of LPT will be dealt with by Revenue – Employers are not to make any refunds of this kind.
If the employer receives the P2C detailing LPT after the July payroll has run then the total LPT should be deducted from August through December - the remaining 5 month period.
Employers are obliged to keep a record of the applicable LPT that they deduct for Revenue and are required to account for the figures on the Forms P30 and P35 in respect of the employees concerned. The employer is also responsible for recording the appropriate LPT data for employees on their payslips as well as P60’s and P45s.
Where there is a Court Order on file prior to the issuance of the P2C this must take precedence over the LPT deduction. However, if the P2C is issued prior to a Court Order being made then the LPT deduction will preside. Where the Court Order and P2C are issued or made effective from the same date the Court Order takes precedence. The LPT payment, however, takes precedence over all non-statutory deductions like Health Insurance.
The Employer/Pension provider cannot take an instruction from the employee to stop deducting LPT from his or her salary – the employer is obliged to deduct the applicable LPT until the P2C shows that no further payment is due. If an employee would like to pay the relevant tax via a different method he or she should contact the LPT Branch and make these arrangements – then the employer will be issued with an updated P2C telling them to stop the deduction from pay/pension. Similarly if the employee feels as though there is a discrepancy in the amount of LPT they are being charged he or she should discuss this with the LPT Branch 
On the basis of a decline in sales within an exhaust business the Finance Director decided that a redundancy was required. There were 4 employees who generated sales for the company. The Finance Director believed the company only required 3 people to perform the sales roles.
The 4 individuals were informed that their positions were at risk and they were given a copy of the selection matrix that was used to determine who would be made redundant. The 4 employees all agreed that the matrix (after a slight amendment suggested by one of the employees concerned) was a fair and equitable way of assessing them. The sales director scored the matrices. The employee who scored the lowest was informed that he was to be made redundant.
The employee who was made redundant contended that the selection process had not been fairly operated. The Finance Director had not raised the issue of the exhaust centre’s declining profitability with him before deciding to make someone redundant. He was not told his sales were down.
The employee who was made redundant was at a disadvantage because the 3 other employees had a closer affinity with one another than with him and therefore he scored lower on team work.
While the employee who was made redundant did not object to the selection matrix – he did, however, feel as though it had not been scored fairly. His extensive product knowledge was not taken into account. Also not taken into account was his City & Guilds qualification.
After his redundancy the employee learned that the company had a new operation in Cork. A former employee was recruited to manage the new operation. The claimant was not told about the new operation or asked to apply for any of the jobs there.
The claimant established loss for the Tribunal.
The Tribunal carefully considered all evidence in the case. It was clear that management did not speak to the employee when they determined that his position was not profitable.
When it came to the process of selecting an employee for redundancy, the method chosen put the employee at a distinct disadvantage.
The Tribunal found that the selection process was unfair and therefore the dismissal of the claimant was unfair. The claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007 succeeded and the claimant was awarded the sum of €58,000.00 in addition to any payment he had already received.
Some of our services are listed below:
• Management of all training vendors
•Scheduling of training programmes
•Management of training venues and facilities
•Maintenance and administration of training records
•Feedback assessment of programme content
•Establishment of a single point of invoicing for training programmes
•Succession planning
•Tailored generation of reports and statistics
If you have any queries at all please do not hesitate to get in touch.