The HR Company Administrator, Author at The HR Company

About The HR Company Administrator

This author has not yet filled in any details.
So far The HR Company Administrator has created 134 blog entries.

Important Points for Employers re Data Protection

The Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003 provide rules that apply to the collection, use, disclosure and transfer abroad of information about individuals. The Acts cover the principals that companies must follow when processing personal data about employees as well as information about clients/residents.

The Acts also give individuals certain rights in relation to personal data that is held about them. 

If you as a Company collect, host or process data about people on any type of computer or structured filing system, then you are considered a data controller under the Acts.

Every Company holding information about individuals should have a Data Protection Policy in place and should ensure that all IT administrators and employees with access to personal/confidential information are fully trained on the rights and responsibilities associated with that access.

Billy Hawkes, the Data Protection Commissioner, ensures that companies that keep personal data are in compliance with the Acts. The Commissioner has a range of enforcement powers to help guarantee that the provisions of the Acts are observed. The Commissioner can serve legal notices compelling data controllers to provide information needed to assist with his enquiries. He can also compel data controllers to implement provisions of the Acts in a particular prescribed manner.

He may investigate complaints made by members of the public and can authorise officers to enter sites with the aim of inspecting the type of personal information kept as well as how it is processed and the security measures that the data controller has in place. Companies are required to co-operate fully with such data protection officers.

Data controllers who are found guilty of offences under the Acts can be fined up to €100,000 on conviction and may be ordered to delete all or part of their database.

The Data Protection Commissioner publishes a report annually naming, in certain cases, data controllers who were investigated by his office.

On 12th May 2014 Billy Hawkes launched his Annual Report for 2013. The report contains a summary of the activities of the Office of the Data Commissioner during the entire year.

The Annual Report highlights a huge number of individual complaints that were referred to the Office regarding difficulties in gaining access to personal data. According to the report these were as a result of poor customer service standards by commercial entities.

It appears as though individuals who feel as though they are not receiving sufficient customer service from a commercial entity are exercising their data protection rights more regularly and are more frequently requesting a copy of all personal data held by that entity.

If the initial query or request had been comprehensively dealt with in the first instance then perhaps they would have been less likely to exercise their data protection right to request a copy of all personal data held about them.

Employers should note that telephone call recordings are considered personal data. The Office has seen as increase in the number of access requests to data controllers by individuals seeking a copy of telephone recordings. Organisations are obliged to inform data subjects that their call may be recorded if a call recording system is in operation.

Throughout the course of 2013 the Office opened more than 900 complaints for investigation. More than 500 of these complaints (56.8%) were from individuals who experienced difficulty when gaining access to their personal data held by organisations. This was a record high for this type of complaint which is indicative of the increased level of awareness among the general public of their statutory right of access.

Last year the Office dealt with 1,577 Data Security Breach notifications. The 2013 Annual Report contains a variety of case studies regarding Data Security Breach investigations. One such case study involved the taking of a client list by a former employee to a new employer. This has emerged as a regular issue in recent years and is a serious breach that is a big concern for all employers.

Civil sanctions may result where a person suffers any damage as a consequence of failures on the part of a data controller to meet his/her obligations.

In November 2013 it was discovered that the personal information of more than 1,500,000 people was compromised by a major security breach at a Co. Clare based Company. In an RTE Morning Ireland interview at the time, Mr. Hawkes admitted that “cyber-criminals have become extremely sophisticated and it can be quite difficult to actually identify that your system has been perpetrated.” This was one of the worst data breaches in Irish history.

The Society for Chartered IT Professionals in Ireland, known as the Irish Computer Society (ICS), carried out a recent survey on data protection in Ireland and the results, which were published in January 2014, were astonishing.

256 Irish based companies were surveyed and a record number of data breaches were reported to have occurred in 2013. Findings revealed that one in two of the surveyed companies experienced a data breach during the last 12 months. In fact, more than 20% of the companies contacted by the ICS reported multiple breaches. These statistics mark a significant increase on last year’s figures when 43% of companies examined reported a breach.

According to the results, one third of employees are not fully aware of data protection issues and many receive insufficient data protection training or, alarmingly, no relevant training whatsoever.

Several IT managers admitted that Data Protection policies are not implemented at all in their Company or they are only partially adhered to. The survey has highlighted the need for companies to manage their data processing environment much more carefully and provide additional training for their IT administrators and all employees who have contact with personal information pertaining to employees/clients. According to the ICS survey, negligence on the part of employees accounted for 77% of the reported incidents. Hackers seeking to obtain data and unencrypted laptops were also cited as major threats.

According to Fintan Swanton, Chairman of the Association of Data Protection Officers, “Clear policies and procedures are vital, with regular refresher training and timely reviews to ensure that staff are complying with the structures.”

It is important for employers to be aware that new data protection legislation will require most organisations to appoint a Data Protection Officer.

By The HR Company Administrator| 2017-01-02T10:59:51+00:00 June 17th, 2015|Contracts of Employment|0 Comments

As redress for infringement of her statutory rights and breaches of the Employment Equality Acts, former employee of a Multi-National Retailer receives compensation in the amount of €30,000.

The Director of the Equality Tribunal delegated this case to Orlaith Mannion, Equality Officer on 13^th August 2013.

The specific case concerned a claim by Ms. H against her employer, a Multi-National Retailer. Ms. H claimed that she was discriminated against on the grounds of disability in terms 6(2)(g) of the Employment  Equality Acts 1998-2011. The claimant stated that her employer failed to provide appropriate measures to allow her to continue to be employed in her original role with the retailer.

The claimant had worked on the customer service desk for 30 years and enjoyed her position there. In 2001 Ms. H had an operation to remove her colon and, after that, had some medical issues including episodes of diarrhoea. A few years after this operation, Ms. H once again had surgery – this time on her knees as a result of osteoarthritis and had issues with the toilet facilities in her place of work after this as the one suitable toilet in the store was upstairs. One toilet located on Ms. H’s floor required that she walk across the shopping centre to access it. This toilet did not offer a huge improvement for Ms. H as she had to hoist herself up and down onto the toilet by gripping the doorframe.

Disabled

When the store was being revamped, the claimant suggested that her employer take the opportunity to install a toilet for people with disabilities – customers and employees alike. No disabled toilet was installed and Ms. H said she heard many excuses for this throughout her service with her employer.

Ms. H claimed that in 2009 she was informed that a disabled toilet was due to be installed. Ms. H went on holidays shortly after hearing this news and, unfortunately, broke her leg while away. Ms. H was a wheelchair user for a period of 6 months and underwent more surgeries in January and July 2010. When she was back on her feet Ms. H wanted to return to work and was medically certified as fit to do so in July 2011. Ms. H’s doctor made some recommendations that would allow Ms. H to return to work –

The doctor recommended that Ms. H should return on a phased basis, that she should be able to sit for periods during her working day and that she have access to a disabled toilet.

The employer responded stating that the claimant returning on a phased basis would be facilitated. However, they were not able to fulfil the other recommendations of the doctor. According to the store management, Ms. H’s role (behind the kiosk) had changed during her absence and, although a chair had been available there previously, the store was no longer able to facilitate a chair behind the kiosk and therefore they could offer her a role at the checkout when she returned to work instead of Ms. H returning to her previous role. A checkout role would not have been practical for Ms. H to take as she would have been required to lift heavy grocery items and this was something that she was not able to do (and had not been required to do as part of her Customer Service role).

Also, according to the management, because the store revamp had been suspended, so too had the provision of a disabled toilet. However, the respondent did offer the claimant extra time to use the shopping centre’s disabled toilet and the management of the store felt as though this was reasonable.

Ms. H felt that the checkout role was unsuitable and would have been a demotion. She also felt that the toilet scenario was unacceptable as there was often queues at this toilet and her condition did not allow for her to wait in queues for long periods. Ms. H raised a formal grievance which was heard in August 2011. The complaint was not upheld and neither was Ms. H’s appeal. Ms. H felt that her employer ignored her disabilities since her surgeries in 2005 and felt as though her employer had failed in their duty of care to her.

The respondent refuted any claims of discrimination and claimed that the employee had been out of work for a much longer period than the doctor had originally advised (6-9 months). More than one year after Ms. H broke her leg on holidays she attended a return to work meeting and the respondent pointed out that Ms. H was outside of her support period and recommended that she attend the company doctor. Ms. H did so the following month and the Occupational Health Advisor recommended that she return to work on a phased basis in approximately 3 months' time. The Health Advisor also recommended that a risk assessment should take place and anything like slippy or uneven floors should be attended to in order that another fall was prevented.

The respondent was satisfied for Ms. H to return when recommended by the Occupational Health Advisor (in approximately 3 months). However, as the Customer Service desk role had changed in the two years that Ms. H had been absent from work and (for various reasons e.g. lack of space) no chair was situated there any longer, the respondent was not especially fit for that particular role any longer. Ms. H and her doctor felt that the checkout operator role was not a valid alternative.

The Equality Officer found that Ms. H had been discriminated against by her employer. While her doctor’s request for her to return to work on a phased basis had been upheld, other notable recommendations were not fully adhered to.

MS. H was supposed to be allowed to sit for periods during the working shift – the customer service role would not have allowed for this and, while the checkout operator role allowed her to sit, it required lifting of heavy groceries. The Equality Officer found that providing a reasonable disabled toilet for Ms. H would have cost the respondent approximately €22,600.00 and this would not have imposed a burden on a company that, in 2013, reported revenue in Ireland as £2,315 million Sterling.

The employer did not show genuine engagement with the process of finding effective and practical measures to allow the claimant to return to work.

Therefore, the Equality Officer found in favour of the claimant.

In accordance with Section 82 of the Act, she ordered the respondent:

(a) pay the complainant €30,000 (the approximate equivalent of a year’s salary) in compensation for breaches of the Employment Equality Acts. The award is redress for the infringement of Ms H’s statutory rights and, therefore, not subject to income tax as per Section 192A of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 (as amended by Section 7 of the Finance Act 2004).

(b) conduct a review of its employment policies and procedures to ensure that they are in compliance with these Acts with particular reference to how employees with disabilities are treated.

http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2014/April/DEC-E2014-030.html

By The HR Company Administrator| 2017-01-02T10:59:51+00:00 June 17th, 2015|Contracts of Employment|0 Comments

The Applicable Minimum Notice Periods for Employees in Ireland

The Minimum Notice Acts 1973 to 2005 ensure that every employee who has been in the continuous employment of his or her employer for at least 13 weeks is entitled to a minimum notice period before you, as the employer, may dismiss that employee.   The statutory period varies depending on the length of service (outlined below). It is essential to note that if you do not require the employee to work out their notice you, as the employer, are obliged to pay the employee for the applicable period.

If the employment lasted between 13 weeks and 2 years the Acts provide that you should pay the employee one week's notice before termination of employment
If the length of service is between 2 and 5 years then the notice period must be 2 weeks
For 5 to 10 years then the appropriate notice is 4 weeks
From 10 to 15 years then 6 weeks’ notice must be given
For more than 15 years the employee is entitled to a notice period of 8 weeks.

You can agree payment in lieu of notice with the employee if this is a more suitable arrangement for both parties involved. If it is the employee that has made the decision to terminate the employment contract and he or she has carried out 13 weeks of continuous employment with the company then he or she is obliged to serve you, as the employer, with notice 1 week prior to the departure date (unless the contract of employment provides for a longer notice period). It is important to bear in mind that the Acts do not apply to:

Members of the Permanent Defence Forces (except temporary staff in the Army Nursing Service
Members of An Garda Síochán
Seamen signing on under the Merchant Shipping Ac
The immediate family of the employer (provided they live with the employer and work in the same private house or farm
Established civil servants

Employees are said to have continuous service if they have not been dismissed or have not voluntarily left their job during the period in question. This continuity is not normally affected by things like lay-offs or by a dismissal followed by immediate re-employment. Nor is it affected by the transfer or trade of a business from one person to another. However, it is important to distinguish between categories of employees for the purposes of these Acts as an employee who has claimed for and received a redundancy payment as a result of lay-off, for instance, is considered to have left his or her employment on a voluntary basis. If an employee was absent from work because he or she was taking part in a strike relating to the business in which the employee is employed this period is not included in their “continuous service” record. Minimum Notice Periods

  It is very important to note that the Acts do not affect your right or that of the employee to terminate a contract of employment without notice due to the gross misconduct of the other party. A Workplace Relations Customer Services department has been set up at the offices of the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. This resulted from the amalgamation of the information services previously provided by the National Employment Rights Authority’s Contact Centre and the general enquiries areas of the Equality Tribunal, the Rights Commissioner Service and the Employment Appeals Tribunal. This section has responsibility for:

information provision in relation to employment, equality and Industrial Relations rights and obligations
the receipt and registration of all complaints referred to the five Workplace Relations Bodies, and
dealing with enquiries concerning all complaints.

From 3rd January 2012 all complaints to the Workplace Relations Bodies have been channelled through Workplace Relations Customer Services, where they are registered, acknowledged and referred to the relevant adjudication body.

By The HR Company Administrator| 2017-01-02T10:59:54+00:00 June 17th, 2015|Notice|0 Comments

Breaks and Rest Periods in the Irish Workplace

Under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 every single employee in Ireland has a legal entitlement to breaks during their working day (or night) and is entitled to have clearly defined rest periods between their working days/nights. Under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 a rest period is defined as any time that is not ‘working time’. In general, an employee is entitled to a 15 minute break after the completion of 4.5 hours of work. If the employee is working a shift of 6 hours then he or she is entitled to a 30 minute break (the first break of 15 minutes can be included in this 30 minute break allocation). The employer is not obliged to pay employees for these break periods and they are not included when counting the total amount of time that the employee has worked. The regulations vary slightly for different categories of employees - for instance, shop employees who work more than 6 hours at a time are entitled to a break of one consecutive hour between the hours of 11:30 and 14:30 if they are scheduled to be in the workplace during that time. Employees are entitled to 11 consecutive hours of rest in a 24 hour period – on top of this, an employee should receive 24 consecutive rest hours in every 7 day period and this 24 hour allocation should follow an 11 hour rest period. Where an employer does not give his or her employee a full 24 hour consecutive rest period throughout the course of one week he or she must give two of these 24 hour rest periods in the following week. This rest period, unless otherwise stated, should include a Sunday. Not all employees are governed by the break and rest period rules described above. Members of An Garda Síochána, The Defence Forces and employees who manage their own working hours are exempt. Family employees on farms or in private homes are also excluded from the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 directives. The working terms and conditions for people under the age of 18 differ from those listed here. They are regulated by the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1996. In exceptional circumstances or emergencies an employer is exempt from providing the above mentioned rest periods but only where he or she provides equivalent compensatory rest. Where the rest period is postponed the employer must allow the employee to take the compensatory rest within a reasonable period of time. Employees working in transport activities or certain categories of civil protection services are exempt from the statutory break regulations specified above (the equivalent compensatory rest rules do not apply for these employees). Employers should be aware that employees have 6 months to make a complaint regarding breaks and rest periods in the workplace (in extreme circumstances this period can be extended to 12 months).

By The HR Company Administrator| 2017-01-02T10:59:53+00:00 June 17th, 2015|Breaks|0 Comments

Why Not to Ignore Stress in the Workplace

In recent years Stress and Work Related Stress (WRS) have been cited more and more regularly on medical certificates provided to employers when employees are out of work on sick leave. While, for some people, a certain amount of stress can actually act as a challenge or a motivating factor, Work Related Stress generally has an adverse effect on employees and, consequently, on business operations. A broad definition of Work Related Stress (WRS) is a negative personal state that arises in response to aspects of the work environment or how a person perceives the work environment to be. Work Related Stress gives the sufferer the feeling that he or she cannot cope with their current situation and that the demands placed upon them exceed their ability to actually fulfil those demands. The source of this Work Related Stress can lie in the home or personal life of the sufferer and can be exacerbated by work issues or it can come directly from the work environment. The origin of the stress varies depending on many factors.

Causes of stress can include, for example:

a lack of definition or ambiguity around organisational tasks,
a lack of control or support,
poor relationships with colleagues,
long working hours,
unachievable deadlines and time pressures,
too many tasks to complete at one time,
significant change to an employee’s role,
expansion of the company,
poor systems for dealing with bullying,
a sense of job insecurity and
barriers to communication

Stress that manifests itself in the workplace can lead to higher accident levels and higher levels of absenteeism due to ill-health. It can lead to low morale and issues with productivity. All of these have very negative implications for employees as well as employers. Stress can have short or longer lasting effects – this depends on many factors; the number and severity of the issues leading to the stress, the person involved and their response to the issues (e.g. their age/personality style/emotional state), the length of exposure and the internal/external support structures available to the sufferer. Stress can cause anger and frustration – it can lead to irritability and emotional distress or depression. In extreme circumstances it can lead to an inability to sleep properly as well as unhealthy habits such as gambling, smoking, drinking and eating irregularly. Medical conditions such as high blood pressure are associated with prolonged or extreme periods of stress. Stress can manifest itself in many different forms. According to the Health and Safety Authority’s booklet on Work-Related Stress the effects of stress fall into four categories: Mental, Physical, Behavioural and Cognitive. What this means is that stress can negatively impact how the mind works, how the body works, the things that we do (voluntarily and involuntarily) and the way that we think. It is clear that it is in everyone’s best interest to limit Work Related Stress where possible. Stress can necessitate remedial action in order to reverse its effects – this can be something as simple as a minor change in eating, sleeping or exercising practices or it can require something as extreme as inpatient care in a clinic or hospital. Work Stress

Employers in Ireland are obliged, as far as is reasonably practicable, to ensure that the health and safety of their employees is not under threat. Employers must not place unreasonable demands on employees in the course of their employment. It is essential for employers to put preventative measures in place. We advise employers to carry out risk assessments in order to ensure that demands on employees are reasonable. A risk assessment or audit should highlight any problem areas and these should be addressed as soon as possible to avoid the emergence of Work Related Stress. Absenteeism, staff turnover, levels of injury rates of illness are less of a concern in companies where employees cite low levels of Work Related Stress so investing some time and resources in preventative measures is a worthwhile activity. Employers can help to reduce Work Related Stress by ensuring that organisational and employee goals are clear. Stress can also be minimised if employers respect their employees and give them constructive feedback and recognition on their performance. Practicing consistent and fair management methods will limit stress levels. Allowing employees to be involved in the decision making process will also have a positive effect on the levels of stress experienced by employees within an organisation.

By The HR Company Administrator| 2017-01-02T10:59:55+00:00 June 17th, 2015|Employee Stress|0 Comments

The HR Company provides Mediation to Resolve Workplace Disputes

The HR Company provides Mediation as an Alternative Dispute Resolution practice. Workplace mediation involves a third, neutral party bringing two disputing individuals (or groups) together in order to reach an agreement that satisfies both sides.This type of dispute resolution is gaining credibility as an alternative to court/formal proceedings and The HR Company employs experienced mediators who help your workplace to return to a healthy environment. As many of us know, clashes in the workplace can be extremely disruptive – not just to those directly involved but to bystanders also. Conflicts can arise for multiple reasons – for example, they can be as a result of a dispute over performance or something as simple as a personality clash. Conflict can severely impede an organisation’s ability to run efficiently and can damage employee well-being. It can cause stress, anxiety and depression. Conflict can increase employee turnover and can negatively influence reputation in the industry as well as delaying the Company’s achievement of its corporate goals. Another negative consequence of a dispute in the workplace is a decrease in productivity levels. Similarly, morale within the Company can be influenced in a negative manner as a result of work-related disputes and levels of employee absence can also increase. It is clear that workplace disputes can have extensive side effects. In an effort to resolve matters, parties are regularly forced to attend Employment Appeals Tribunal/Labour Court proceedings. However, this is not always the best course of action as, in our experience; these processes can often lead to a complete breakdown in relationships and can prove to be extremely lengthy and costly. In fact, these methods can often aggravate matters as, typically, only one party is satisfied with the conclusion and resources, including time and finances, have often been significantly drained throughout the process. In some instances, mediation can be an acceptable alternative to court proceedings when disputes arise in the workplace. Mediation is a confidential process where our experienced mediators encourage both parties to discuss all elements of the dispute without fear that their legal position could be compromised or prejudiced. Mediation can encourage a more swift resolution of differences and aims to find a solution that satisfies all parties while avoiding the types of adversarial procedures that have become very common in this era of increased employee litigation. Efficient working relationships can often be restored through the practice of mediation. Mediation is an informal approach to dispute resolution. It can be used in an attempt to resolve a vast range of differences. In our experience, mediation is most effective when introduced at the initial phase of disagreements, however, it can also be availed of later in the process – after Tribunal proceedings have concluded, for instance. At this stage mediation could assist in repairing the relationship between the parties that have been in conflict. When we are engaged by a Company to perform mediation, an unbiased facilitator assists the two parties to a dispute in reaching an agreement by listening to and understanding both sides to the story. The purpose of a skilled mediator is to encourage the parties to arrive at a mutually satisfactory solution. Our role as a neutral third party is not to judge or to determine who is at fault but, instead, to enable the meaningful exchange of information between parties with an ultimate goal of resolving the conflict. The HR Company mediator will not determine the outcome – this should come from the disputing parties. Mediation is morally binding but normally does not carry any legal status. There is usually one mediator or two co-mediators. One significant advantage of mediation is that it tends to be far less of a financial burden when compared to formal proceedings. Both parties to a dispute are encouraged by The HR Company’s skilled mediator to talk very honestly and openly during the process and, as a consequence of that, mediation can assist in the discovery and resolution of the root cause of the conflict that exists in the workplace and can prevent the same situation from arising in the future. This is less likely to be the case in a Tribunal type scenario. Mediation is not always a suitable dispute resolution method, however, if it is determined that it is appropriate then it can involve either an internal scheme or an external provider like The HR Company. Internal schemes mainly exist in larger organisations. During mediation The HR Company’s neutral mediator chairs the process which helps to dispel tension that may have built up between disputing parties. It is vital that levels of tension in the workplace are minimal especially where the parties are expected to continue to work together. The process can take an entire day or more. Either way the process is far less time consuming than going through the courts. Mediation is beneficial because it is a voluntary non-confrontational process – both parties will be more likely to co-operate as neither is obliged to be involved in the process. The stages of mediation are as follows:

Normally, both parties meet with the mediator separately initially so that the procedure can be discussed and so each party has the opportunity to illustrate their ideal outcome.
Usually a joint meeting is then scheduled in order that the issues may be heard.
Next, the issues are explored and an agreement is drawn up. The mediator will support the parties in solving their problems and will assist in ensuring that the agreements are workable. If he or she feels that it is necessary, the skilled mediator will separate the parties and will deal with them individually at various points.
The last stage in the process includes the explanation of responsibilities and the distribution of a copy of the agreement to all involved.

Sometimes, unfortunately, no agreement is reached. If this is the case then nothing that has been discussed throughout the mediation process may be used in any future proceeding should they take place. If you feel as though your employees may benefit from mediation please contact us so that we may discuss the process with you further.

By The HR Company Administrator| 2017-01-02T10:59:56+00:00 June 17th, 2015|HR Services|0 Comments

Labour Court rules – ‘Working in the Rain’ allowance to stay

A group of 27 low income cleaners who work for the South Dublin County Council were delighted yesterday, Thursday 20^th March 2014, when they were successful in their fight to keep their ‘Working In The Rain’ allowance which works out at approximately €50 per week per employee. The Labour Court ruling was in response to attempts by South Dublin County Council to abolish the allowance. Brendan O’Brien of SIPTU described the ruling as a ‘significant victory’ as the outcome has been hanging over the workers involved for an extended period of time. The workers, who perform street and park cleaning duties for the Council, are paid between €400 and €500 on average per week so the ‘Working In The Rain’ allowance amounts to approximately 10% of their income each week. The cost of the ‘Working In The Rain’ allowance to the Council is approximately €75,000 per year and the Council claimed that this payment is outdated because all of the employees now have the benefit of protective clothing to ensure they can carry out their duties safely - irrespective of the external weather conditions. The Council claimed that the group of 27 workers affected by this ruling are currently part of a larger group of approximately 140 workers who are all required to work in rainy weather conditions (unless it is unsafe to do so). SIPTU argued that the payment is pensionable and, consequently, to cease paying the allowance would breach the terms of the Haddington Road Agreement. Pension Obligations The dispute, which could not be resolved at local level, was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission and, when no agreement was reached there the dispute between the workers and the Council was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Labour Court ruled that the Claimants (the workers) are entitled to retain the allowance on a personal to holder basis.

By The HR Company Administrator| 2017-01-02T10:59:56+00:00 June 17th, 2015|Labour Court|0 Comments

10 tips on creating a Positive Work Environment

A Positive Working Environment is essential in order to ensure high levels of productivity. This kind of workplace promotes efficiency and makes sure staff are satisfeid in their roles and with their colleagues. A Positive working environment ensures conflict in the workplace is minimal and daily business operations, in general, run smoothly!   Positive Workplace Environment

What to do to create a Positive Working Environment...

Build Trust between all stakeholders
Communicate Positively and Openly – Transparency is key
Create Team Spirit – Cooperation and Synergy is hugely important
Be an approachable employer/manager so that issues are raised early
Expect the best from your employees and they will be encouraged to give you their best
Recognise your employees and their hard work and they will always work hard for you
Give credit where credit is due and take responsibility for your actions
Carry out employee evaluations and reviews and make the experience a positive one
Provide a physical environment that is positive – make them want to come to work
Make the work environment interesting – this will encourage creative thinking

These tips are derived from the guidelines set out by the Workplace Relations website http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/.

Click the image below to download your Staff Suggestions Form

By The HR Company Administrator| 2017-01-02T10:59:57+00:00 June 17th, 2015|encouraging employees|0 Comments

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. Outsourcing

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. Outsourcing HR

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. Outsourcing HR

HR Companies prepare Employment Documentation for their clients and on top of that they are there to advise on all individual Employee-related issues – discrimination claims, rest or 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.

Reasons influencing decision to co-source:

Improve cost-effectiveness

Reduce administrative costs

Redirect HR focus toward strategy/planning

Allow company to focus on core business

Provide seamless delivery of services

Capitalise on technological advantages/expertise

Improve customer service

Have insufficient staff

Decrease response time to clients

Increase flexibility in handling special needs

Increase level of accuracy

Control legal risk/improve compliance

Tangible Cost Savings:

Reduce employee turnover

Control absenteeism

Efficient use of HR systems & applications

Reduce administration costs

Flexible cost base

Training expense

Hiring costs

By The HR Company Administrator| 2017-01-02T10:59:57+00:00 June 17th, 2015|HR for Small Business|0 Comments

Employers must maintain terms & conditions of Employees on Maternity Leave

Equality Tribunal awards €80k to employee subjected to discriminatory treatment. The former employee (the complainant) in this case commenced employment with her employer (the respondent) in 2003 – She was appointed Financial Controller in 2007 and her employment ended in February 2011. She referred a complaint under the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2008 to the Equality Tribunal on 12 July, 2011.

The respondent, who had gone into liquidation by the time the Hearing took place in December, 2013 did not attend the Hearing. The liquidator, who received adequate notice of the Hearing, chose not to attend either. The Hearing proceeded in their absence and the complainant built a case against her former employer in front of Equality Officer, Vivian Jackson.

According to the complainant’s uncontested evidence, she informed her employer that she was expecting her third child in November 2009. She alleged that her employer’s attitude towards, and treatment of, her worsened from this point. She had had a miscarriage in the summer of 2009 and, according to the complainant (Ms. M), her employer (Mr. W) responded to her November pregnancy news with the comment “Jesus Lisa, you don’t hang around”. The complainant gave evidence that a few weeks after this comment her employer again referenced her pregnancy but this time it was in front of clients and his comment shocked her. The complainant gave evidence that Mr. W implied to the clients that he was not happy that she was pregnant and stated that ‘she was meant to stop after two’. Maternity Leave

The complainant described an incident in January 2010 where she was involved in a car accident. She claimed that a doctor certified her as unfit for work for a week in order to ensure that she and her unborn baby were unharmed. Even though she did not have access to a vehicle for the period, the respondent told her that she was required to attend work the following Monday. Ms. M complied with her employer’s request because she was fearful of losing her job. In February 2010, Ms. M requested a meeting in order to discuss cover during her maternity leave - this was due to begin at the end of April 2010. Mr. W agreed to hire an employee during the period that Ms. M was due to be on her protected leave. The complainant was under the impression that the new hire would begin work on a fixed term contract, however, during the course of the interview the successful applicant, Ms. S, asked about the duration of the contract and, to the complainant’s surprise, Mr. W said that he was ‘not sure that Lisa will be coming back to work’. The complainant said that she had never implied that she would not return to work and, in fact, not returning was ‘undesirable from a personal and professional point of view and impossible from a financial perspective’. The complainant gave evidence that the respondent ‘froze her out’ – he undermined her with clients and changed arrangements regularly. He also began removing tasks from the complainant. Ms. M believes that this occurred because her employer no longer felt that, with three children, she would be committed to the company. The complainant demonstrated times where she had shown considerable commitment to the company in the past and said that the employer had no reason to believe that her commitment would diminish. The complainant sought a meeting with Mr. W prior to her leaving for her maternity leave – she wanted to discuss her remuneration and benefits during the leave. In the past, the employee had been allowed to keep her company phone and car during the leave and the employer also topped up her state maternity benefit so she continued to receive her normal monthly net income throughout her maternity leave. This time it was different – Mr. W only offered the complainant a top-up payment of €150 per month – far less than what was offered during previous leave periods. Ms. M accepted this. To her surprise, Ms. M was obliged to return her company car and phone for the duration of her leave on this occasion. Ms. M was due to complete her maternity leave at the end of January 2011 and in December 2010 she contacted her employer to give notice of her intention to return to work. She did not receive a response to this e-mail and so she e-mailed Ms. S, who had been hired to cover the period of maternity leave. Ms. S confirmed that Mr. W had received the complainant’s e-mail. Ms. S sent another e-mail on 6^th January 2011 requesting that Ms. M attend a meeting with Mr. W on 14^th January. At this meeting, Ms M was notified that her role of Financial Controller no longer existed in its previous format within the new company structure. Ms M was informed that the role was redundant and that another position was available to her as an alternative. The new position was a more junior role that not only incorporated additional hours but also a 40% reduction in pay. Ms M was not satisfied with this – she found it to be an unacceptable alternative to the Financial Controller role and demonstrated that her original role was not in fact redundant as MS. S continued to perform Ms. M’s original duties and was listed as the company’s Financial Controller on the company website. The complainant researched her position in light of the new role that her employer offered her as an alternative and realised that she was not obliged to accept the offer. The respondent offered Ms. M her original terms and conditions (including rate of pay and hours), however, the role that she was being asked to perform going forward was a clear demotion and a serious reduction in responsibility. She requested to return to her role as Financial Controller. Again it was expressed by the respondent that this role was redundant and he offered her 14 days to decide whether or not to take the new role of ‘Credit Control Manager’. Ms. M said that she was only happy to return to her original role and stated why the new offer was unacceptable in light of the fact that her original role clearly still existed. Mr. W wrote to Ms. M a number of days later rejecting her arguments and adding that, as she had not reported for duty, he considered her to have resigned. Dismissed

Vivian Jackson, Equality Officer, found that Ms. M had been subjected to a range of unlawful treatments. Her employer made it impossible for her to proceed wither pre maternity leave role and essentially dismissed her. The Equality Officer ordered that the respondent pay the complainant €80,000.00 in compensation for the discrimination inflicted on her.

By The HR Company Administrator| 2017-01-02T10:59:55+00:00 June 17th, 2015|Discrimination|0 Comments

Previous 2 3 4 5 6 Next

Find your Ideal HR Career at The HR Company

Supporting Businesses Across Ireland for Nearly 18 Years!

About The HR Company Administrator