Policies & Procedures Archives - Page 5 of 9

Employing Young People – Under 18s Register
Gallery
Employing Young People – Under 18s Register

Contracts of Employment, HR Guide, Policies & Procedures

Employing Young People – Under 18s Register

The Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1996 is designed to protect the health of young workers and places restrictions on their employment. The basis for this is to guarantee the protection of young people and to ensure the workload assumed is not jeopardising their education.

The law sets minimum age limits for employment. It also sets rest intervals and maximum working hours, and prohibits employees under the age of 18 from working late at night. Employers must also keep specified records for those workers who are under the age of 18.

During a National Employment Rights Authority (NERA) assessment the inspector will request access to the company’s register of employees under the age of 18 (if the company employs workers in this category). 

  NERA

There are strict rules that employers must adhere to when employing those under the age of 18.

According to the Act employers cannot employ children under the age of 16 in regular full-time jobs. 

Children aged 14 and 15 may be employed on a controlled basis.

Some rules to pay attention to:

•They can do light work during the school holidays – 21 days off must be given during this period.

•They can be employed as part of an approved work experience or educational programme where the work is not harmful to their health, safety or development.

•They can be employed in film, cultural/advertising work or sport under licences issued by the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation.

•Children aged 15 may do a maximum of 8 hours of light work per week during the school term. The maximum working week for children outside of the school term is 35 hours (or up to 40 hours if they are on approved work experience).

•The maximum working week for children aged 16 and 17 is 40 hours with a maximum of 8 hours per day.

  Under 18s

There are many obligations on the employer when he or she employs a young person – here is a list of some of the items that employers must be vigilant of:
 

An employer must be provided with a copy of the young person’s birth certificate (or other documentation proving age) prior to the commencement of employment.

Break rules are: 30 minutes break after working 4.5 hours

Before employing a child an employer must obtain the written permission of the parent or guardian of the child.

An employer must maintain a register of employees under 18 containing the following information:

•The full name of the young person or child

•The date of birth of the young person or child

•The time the young person or child commences work each day

•The time the young person or child finishes work each day

•The rate of wages or salary paid to the young person or child for his or her normal working hours each day, week, month or year, as the case may be, and

•The total amount paid to each young person or child by way of wages or salary

Download your copy of our Under 18s Register here:

An employer and parent/guardian who fails to comply with the provisions of the Act shall be guilty of an offence. 

Some other notable rules the employer must adhere to when employing a young person or child are as follows:

•The employer is obliged to ensure that the young person receives a minimum rest period of 12 consecutive hours in each period of 24 hours.

•The employer is obliged to ensure that the young person receives a minimum rest period of 2 days which shall, where possible, be consecutive, in any 7 day period.

•The employer cannot require or permit the young person to do work for any period without a break of at least 30 consecutive minutes.

For a comprehensive guide to employer responsibilities and the rules and regulations governing the employment of young workers please refer to the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1996

You must give employees a copy of the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act

docs/Protection of Young Persons Employment Act 1996.pdf

Under 18 Employees

The national minimum wage for an experienced adult employee is €8.65 per hour.  An experienced adult employee for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage Act is an employee who has an employment of any kind in any 2 years since the age of 18.

The Act also provides the following sub-minimum rates;  

An employee who is under 18 is entitled to €6.06 per hour (this is 70% of the minimum wage)

An employee who is in the first year of employment since the age of 18 is entitled to €6.92 per hour (80% of minimum wage)

An employee who is in the second year of employment since the date of first employment over the age of 18 is entitled to €7.79 per hour (90% of the minimum wage)

By The HR Company Administrator|2021-02-23T17:50:11+00:00June 17th, 2015|Contracts of Employment, HR Guide, Policies & Procedures|0 Comments

Employment Appeals Tribunal Awards €11.5k To Employee Dismissed After Criminal Conviction
Gallery
Employment Appeals Tribunal Awards €11.5k To Employee Dismissed After Criminal Conviction

Employment Appeals Tribunal, HR Guide, Policies & Procedures

Employment Appeals Tribunal Awards €11.5k To Employee Dismissed After Criminal Conviction

It is crucial to exercise extreme care when dismissing an employee – even if he or she has been convicted of a serious criminal offence and even in instances where your discipline policy permits dismissal on conviction. A former employee of a multinational retailer was recently awarded €11,500.00 in compensation for being unfairly dismissed after being convicted of a serious criminal offence.

The Employment Appeals Tribunal heard testimony from a large multinational retailer (respondent) and a former employee (claimant) who claimed to have been unfairly dismissed by his employer of 15 years after being convicted of a criminal offence. According to the Employment Appeals Tribunal Report, at the time the claimant was dismissed, in September 2011, he was working as a charge hand in one of the respondent’s stores. The claimant’s disciplinary record with the respondent, apart from the issue for which he was dismissed, was clean when his employment was terminated. In 2009 the employee had been charged with the criminal offence of possession of an illegal substance with the intention to sell it. According to the claimant, when he was charged with the criminal offence he informed the then Store Manager and continued as normal in his employment thereafter.

  According to the claimant, he informed the new Store Manager and the Personnel Manager in April 2011 that he would need time off to attend Court in July of that year. The respondent claimed that he had informed the company of his requirement for time off in July rather than in April. The Claimant was absent for approximately one month from early July to early August due to an injury. During that month he attended Court and received an eight-month suspended sentence in light of his guilty plea. On 2^nd August 2011, the then Store Manager held a meeting during which the claimant confirmed that he had received a conviction. The claimant was informed that this could have repercussions on his employment status with the company and that it could result in dismissal after investigation. He was suspended with pay while an investigation was carried out. A number of investigation meetings were held with the claimant. A Union representative was present and a number of issues were raised in the meetings. It came to light that the store’s Personnel Manager had provided a character reference for the claimant in advance of the trial in addition to a standard reference from the company.

The respondent pointed out that the character reference that was provided by the Personnel Manager was not on company headed paper and therefore was an unofficial letter, however, the Union representative nullified this point by highlighted the fact that numerous letters regarding the meetings between the claimant and the respondent were also on non-headed paper but were considered official. *At the Hearing, in February 2014, the respondent confirmed that it stood over the character reference as well as the standard company reference that had been provided to the claimant. A notable issue raised during the course of the meetings related to the claimant’s conviction bringing the company into disrepute. The Union representative stated that the conviction had not been reported in the news and enquired as to how the company’s name was in disrepute. The Union representative asked how other employees with convictions had been disciplined.

Due to the nature of the conviction, once the investigation was concluded, the Store Manager decided to invoke the disciplinary procedure. The respondent was concerned about the drug conviction and the impact it would have on customers entering the store if it became public knowledge.

A meeting was held on the 20th September 2011 with a subsequent meeting on the 26th September 2011. At the second meeting, the claimant was informed that he was dismissed on the grounds of serious misconduct under the following headings:

Conviction by a Court of law for any serious criminal offence considered damaging to the company or its employees.
Conduct which brings the company’s good name into disrepute.

The claimant decided to appeal the decision and his representative wrote a letter detailing the appeal grounds. The Appeal Officer was the Manager of another of the respondent’s stores. The Appeal Officer was asked to hear the appeal but was not provided with the letter setting out the grounds of appeal. At the appeal meeting the Appeal Officer listened to the claimants grounds of appeal and went on to investigate each one afterwards. The Appeal Officer travelled to the store where the claimant had been employed so that he could review his personnel file. However, he did not speak to the Store Manager, the Personnel Manager or anyone else working at that store in relation to the claimant. The Appeal Officer considered the issues raised by the claimant including, firstly, the fact that he had kept the company apprised, secondly, the fact that he was provided with a character reference from the Personnel Manager for Court and, finally, that the conviction was not in the public domain. The Appeal Officer considered the notes from the meetings held with the claimant when considering the appeal. Given the grounds of appeal he did not deem it necessary to speak to anyone other than the claimant. In concluding his consideration of the appeal he upheld the decision to dismiss as he found that the claimant’s conviction could easily bring the company into disrepute. When cross-examined at the Employment Appeals Tribunal Hearing, the Appeal Officer confirmed that he did not find evidence that customers or members of the public were aware of the claimant’s conviction but he did consider how it would be viewed if it came into public domain. The Employment Appeals Tribunal found that the dismissal was unfair. It found that the company’s procedures, particularly in relation to the appeal process, were insufficient and it should have considered sanctions other than dismissal. While dismissal was an option open to the respondent under their disciplinary procedure, it should have genuinely considered alternative sanctions in light of the claimant’s otherwise clean employment record and because he had made efforts to keep the company apprised of the situation. The dismissal of the claimant was deemed by the Tribunal to be procedurally unfair. The Tribunal found that the evidence of the Appeal Officer regarding the appeal procedures fell well short of what is normally accepted as being fair. While the nature of the complaint against the employee was serious, the employer should have considered the fifteen years of exemplary employment prior to this. After considering all elements involved in this case, the Tribunal determined that €11,500 should be paid in compensation to the claimant under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.

By The HR Company Administrator|2021-02-23T17:49:40+00:00June 17th, 2015|Employment Appeals Tribunal, HR Guide, Policies & Procedures|0 Comments

A food production company that moved its warehouse 22km for logistics purposes was forced to pay seven staff members a total of €35,000 between them in relocation expenses.

The move, from Causeway to Tralee, Co. Kerry, impacted the workers differently depending on where the individuals lived. Services Industrial Professional Technical Union (SIPTU) sought relocation expenses but the dispute could not be resolved at local level as the Kerry food producer was concerned that conceding would have knock-on effects within the entire Group. The Company also felt that the move was not far enough to warrant paying out relocation expenses and that paying a large sum in compensation would be excessive given the economic climate at the time.

The dispute became the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, however, as agreement was not reached, it was referred to the Labour Court on 31^st January 2014. In accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, a Labour Court Hearing took place on 17^th April 2014.

The Court considered the submissions of the Company as well as the Union and noted that, while the distance was not a particularly significant one, the workers were entitled to receive some sort of compensation in response to the warehouse relocation. The Court also noted that employees personally helped the Company by transferring stock from the original premises to the new one. The workers involved exhibited a significant level of cooperation with their employer and the Court recommended that the Company should pay a figure of €5,000 to each of the seven claimants in full and final settlement of their claim.

By The HR Company Administrator|2021-02-23T17:50:40+00:00June 17th, 2015|Contracts of Employment, HR Guide, Policies & Procedures|0 Comments

No Adoptive or Maternity Leave Ireland for "Commissioning Mothers"

european Court of Justice, Surrogacy, Maternity Leave In September 2013 the legal opinion of the European Court of Justice was that an Irish teacher (Ms. Z), whose child was born through surrogacy, did not have an automatic right to either paid Adoptive Leave or Maternity Leave from her employment.

On 18^th March 2014 a European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling, that referred to the mother who did not give birth to the child as the “commissioning mother”, upheld this opinion. The ruling stressed that it is the birth mother who should benefit from Maternity Leave even where she does not keep the baby after giving birth and even in cases where the mother who takes on the responsibility of the child after birth is the biological mother. The reason for this is to improve the health and safety of pregnant workers and and those who have recently given birth.

Ms. Z and her husband are the baby’s full genetic parents. When Ms. Z’s application for paid Adoptive Leave was denied she brought a complaint to the Equality Tribunal. The woman, who has no uterus as a result of a rare medical condition, claimed that she was discriminated against on the grounds of sex, family status and disability.

The woman was told by her employer that she could take unpaid Parental Leave instead of the requested Adoptive Leave; however, as the child was genetically hers and her name was on the American birth certificate, Ms. Z felt that she was being treated unfairly.

The surrogacy scenario can be a challenging one for all concerned and blurred lines surrounding what mothers are entitled to in the workplace just adds to the complexity of the situation.

The Equality Tribunal referred the case to the ECJ and the Court ruled yesterday that mothers like Ms. Z do not have any automatic right to Adoptive Leave or Maternity Leave.

Maternity Leave

In September 2013, the legal opinion of the Advocate General stated that Ms. Z’s differential treatment was not based on sex, family status or disability, as claimed, but instead on the “refusal of national authorities to equate her situation with that of either a woman who has given birth or an adoptive mother”.

The Court ruled that Ms. Z did not fall within the scope of the Pregnant Worker’s Directive as the Directive in question presupposes that the worker has been pregnant or has given birth to a child. The claim of discrimination on the grounds of sex failed as fathers in this situation are also denied leave. The claim of discrimination on the grounds of disability also failed as, the judgement stated that, while “a woman’s inability to bear her own child may be a source of great suffering” it does not amount to ‘disability’. The concept of ‘disability’ within the EU Employment Equality Framework Directive “presupposes that the limitation, from which the person suffers, in interaction with various barriers, may hinder that person’s full and effective participation in professional life on an equal basis with other workers”.

The recent revelation, that Irish women who have babies through surrogacy arrangements are not afforded the same rights as mothers who have adopted or given birth to their babies, has highlighted the uncertainties/complexities surrounding the issue of surrogacy in both Irish and EU law.

Surrogacy is becoming a more frequent option for women; however, legislation in Ireland has not kept up with this change.

The ECJ stated that member states are “free to apply more favourable rules for commissioning mothers” and paid leave for mothers, who have children through surrogacy arrangements, is being legislated for in The United Kingdom.

Maternity Leave On 30^th January 2014, Justice Minister Alan Shatter published the General Scheme of Children and Family Relationships Bill for consultation. According to Minister Shatter, the draft bill ‘seeks to provide legal clarity on the parentage of children born through assisted human reproduction and surrogacy’.

By The HR Company Administrator|2021-01-07T18:11:32+00:00June 17th, 2015|Policies & Procedures|0 Comments

Pay Slips – Wage Deductions and Associated Employer Responsibilities

The Payment of Wages Act, 1991 forces employers to provide a pay slip in respect of all employees. A pay slip is a statement in writing that outlines the total pay before tax (gross pay) and all details of any deductions from pay. The employer’s responsibility regarding the required provision of pay slips is set down in Section 4 of the Act.

The Act protects against unlawful deductions from employee wages. Here are the important points for employers to remember: -Deductions from employee wages must be authorised by either the employee’s contract of employment or by written consent of the employee – a trade union subscription, for instance. -An exception to this is where the employer makes a deduction from pay when there is a need to recover an overpayment of wages or expenses. -There is an obligation on the employer to make a deduction from an employee’s wages if they are required by a court order to do so - an example of this might be an Attachment of Earnings order in a family law case, for instance. -The employer is entitled to make a deduction if the employee is due to make a payment to the employer –An example of this would be if expenses arose due to the employee being on strike. Employer Responsibilities, Payslips

  On the other hand an improper deduction made by the employer is one which is not authorised. -(Income tax, universal social charge and PRSI contributions are a separate category as they are compulsory deductions required by law). -Where the deduction from wages arises because of either an act or omission of the employee - till shortages or breakages, for instance, or the supply of goods to the employee by the employer (cleaning of uniforms, perhaps) - then the amount of the deduction must be fair and reasonable. -The amount of the deduction must not exceed the loss experienced or cost of the service. -The deduction must take place within 6 months of the loss/cost occurring. Payslips

Failure to pay all or part of the wages due to an employee is considered an unlawful deduction and a complaint can be made under the Payment of Wages Act. Similarly, unpaid notice, holiday pay, bonus and commission payments can also form part of a claim under the Act.

By The HR Company Administrator|2021-02-23T17:53:12+00:00June 17th, 2015|HR Guide, Policies & Procedures|0 Comments

When should you use a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA)?

A non-disclosure agreement (NDA), often referred to as a confidentiality or a secrecy agreement, is a legal contract between two or more parties outlining knowledge and/or information that the parties wish to share with one another but wish not to have accessed by third parties.

By signing the document the parties agree not to disclose information that it contains. An NDA creates a confidential relationship between the parties to protect any type of sensitive material such as details of trade secrets – it prevents the dissemination of company or project-specific information that, if leaked, could be damaging for one or both of the parties involved. It usually prevents the signing party from benefiting commercially from the information.

NDAs are commonly signed when two companies are considering doing business with each other and need to exchange information to benefit the partnership. A mutual NDA restricts both parties in their use of the materials provided; alternatively, an NDA can also exclusively restrict the use of material by one of the individuals or groups involved.

Employers often request that an employee signs an NDA or a similar form of contract when he or she commences employment, or a new assignment, in order to maintain confidentiality.

NDA

An NDA incorporates various basics – the details of the parties who must adhere to the agreement and the information to be kept confidential (often including items such as unpublished patent applications, financial information, customer lists, discoveries and business strategies). When drafting an NDA it is important to include the disclosure period in the contract.

Those writing the NDA should note that if the recipient had prior knowledge, obtained legally, of the matters contained within the NDA - or if the contents are publically available - the signatory cannot be held liable for dispersing the material. Similarly, if the materials are subject to a subpoena or a court order, this would override the contract.

The NDA should have a clause that forces the signing party to return or destroy the confidential information where the project or assignment is abandoned or when they no longer need access to the information.

Breach of the NDA is a serious offense – when this occurs the information owner can apply to court to have an injunction put in place to stop future breaches – Often it is too late at this stage as the damage has already been done. A second option here is to sue the party at fault for damages suffered by the breach. The consequences of breaching the NDA should be set out in the NDA and should include loss of profit as well as loss of reputation and costs and expenses caused by the breach. It is important to remember that Court proceedings can be a long and arduous process.

It can be extremely difficult to prove that an NDA has been breached but if a breach is proven, this can provide the basis for a claim. Given that it is not always possible to prove that an NDA has been breached some people do not rate them – however, at the very least the NDA holds some value in that it clearly sets out in writing what is expected of the parties to avoid any ambiguity and NDAs also serve as a reminder of the confidential nature of the information and act as a deterrent.

By The HR Company Administrator|2021-02-23T17:52:41+00:00June 17th, 2015|Documentation, Policies & Procedures|0 Comments

The Importance of having an Employee Handbook

An Employee Handbook, often referred to as the employee manual, is a book/document containing information about the company and its policies and procedures. It is given to employees by the employer – typically when they first join the organisation.

Employee Handbook This manual is an excellent place to compile all important information pertaining to the company rules and regulations. It can provide useful details for new staff during the induction process and can be a good reference point for existing employees. An employee handbook gives clarity to employees, advises them in certain situations and creates a culture where problems are addressed in a consistent manner.

An employee handbook communicates all of your workplace and HR policies and protects a business from expensive disputes with employees. The National Employment Rights Authority (NERA) aims to achieve a national culture of employment rights compliance. If a NERA inspector visits your workplace they may ask to see the company handbook to determine whether or not the company has appropriate policies and procedures in place and that it adopts the appropriate measures when various workplace scenarios arise.

Employee Handbook

Examples of some of the items that should be incorporated in an employee handbook are as follows:

•Annual Leave Entitlements

•Maternity Leave

•Paternity Leave

•Adoptive Leave

•Parental Leave

•Carer’s Leave

•Compassionate Leave

•Jury Leave

•Employment / Career Break

•Induction

•Performance Management

•Probation

•Grievance Procedures

•Disciplinary Procedures

•Bullying & Harassment

•Drugs and Alcohol Policies / Misuse of Substances / Testing for Intoxicants

•Dress Code, Uniforms, Personal Grooming and Hygiene

•Office Phone and Mobile Phone Use

•Internet, Email and Social Media Use in the Workplace

•Breaks and Rest Periods

•Sick Leave / Sick Pay

•Punctuality / Timekeeping

•Unauthorised Absence

•Clock-In and Clock-Out

•Vehicles and Company Property

•Use of Company Property

•Confidentiality

•Right to Search

•Copyright

•Ethics and Conduct

•Retirement

•Time-off-in-Lieu

•Flexitime

•Training & Education Funding / Study Leave

•Use of CCTV

•Garda Clearance / Vetting

By The HR Company Administrator|2021-02-23T17:52:15+00:00June 17th, 2015|Documentation, HR Guide, Policies & Procedures|0 Comments

Pension Obligations of Irish Employers

No matter how big or how small your company may be – or whether your employees are part-time, seasonal or fixed-term - every Irish employer is obliged to enter into a contract with a PRSA provider and to provide access to at least one standard PRSA for all ‘excluded employees’.

What are ‘excluded employees’? Employees are considered to be ‘excluded employees’ if:

their employer does not offer a pension scheme, or
they are included in a pension scheme for death-in-service benefits only, or

they are not eligible to join the company’s pension scheme or will not become eligible to join the pension scheme within six months from the date they began working there, or
they are included in a pension scheme that does not permit the payment of additional voluntary contributions (AVCs).

  Even if there is only one ‘excluded employee’, an employer must:

enter into a contract with a PRSA provider (there is no charge for doing this)
provide employees with access to a Standard PRSA
allow reasonable paid leave of absence, subject to work requirements, so that excluded employees can set up a Standard PRSA
make deductions from payroll if required
advise employees in writing (normally on their payslip) at least once a month of their total contribution, including employer’s contribution, if any.

What an Employer is NOT responsible for:

You’re not obliged to give any advice to employees in relation to PRSAs, but you must allow your PRSA provider or intermediary reasonable access to your employees to brief them on PRSAs.

You don’t have to contribute to PRSAs on behalf of your employees, but if you decide to do so, your contributions must be paid to the PRSA provider within 21 days of the end of the month in which the employer contributions are due. And please note that you cannot make any deductions from this payment.

You are not responsible for the investment performance of PRSAs

What are the consequences of non-compliance? Be aware that there are significant penalties for failing to discharge your obligations. The Pensions Board will issue on-the-spot fines and prosecute any employers found in breach of theobligations, so it pays to get it right. As an Employer you may be subject to an on-the-spot fine if: (a) You fail to respond to a request by The Pensions Board to furnish information about their provision of access to a Standard PRSA for ‘excluded employees’ and (b) You do not provide at least a monthly statement to employees showing contributions deducted and employer contributions paid in the previous month. The bottom line is that this is not an issue that you can afford to get wrong. To find out more about your obligations, there’s a very helpful booklet on the Pension Board’s website.

IFG have many years of experience of providing Pension Scheme Design & Risk Advisory services to Irish companies. They would be delighted to answer any and all of your pension queries if you would like to find out more www.ifg.ie .

By The HR Company Administrator|2017-01-02T11:00:13+00:00June 17th, 2015|Policies & Procedures|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

Policies & Procedures

The Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1996 is designed to protect the health of young workers and places restrictions on their employment. The basis for this is to guarantee the protection of young people and to ensure the workload assumed is not jeopardising their education.

A&nbsp;food production company that moved its warehouse 22km for logistics purposes was forced to pay seven staff members a total of €35,000 between them in relocation expenses.

A food production company that moved its warehouse 22km for logistics purposes was forced to pay seven staff members a total of €35,000 between them in relocation expenses.