HR Guide Archives - Page 5 of 5

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

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|2021-02-23T17:51:30+00:00June 17th, 2015|Contracts of Employment, HR Guide|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

Employer Responsibilities when it comes to Contracts of Employment

Employers are legally obliged to provide workers with a written statement of the employment agreement between the two parties (the contract) within two months of the employee commencing employment.

Have you heard of NERA?

The National Employment Rights Authority (NERA) delivers unprejudiced information on employment rights legislation to employers and employees in Ireland. NERA is charged with monitoring the employment rights of employees within the country. NERA inspectors perform various checks around the country and investigate suspected breaches of employment rights – it is important to bear in mind that a significant number of these inspection are unannounced. If NERA finds that an employer is not complying with employment rights legislation inspectors will seek reparation from the employer on behalf of the employee. In certain circumstances prosecutions against the employer may result.

NERA has the power to chase awards made by the Labour Court, the Rights Commissioner or the Employment Appeals Tribunal.

In order to pass a NERA inspection; employers must have provided their employees with clarity on the terms and conditions of their employment. The contract should explain the relationship between the employer and employee and should not leave any room for misinterpretation or confusion.

A contract outlines the requirements of the position and conditions the person must work against. In the event of poor performance the employer can refer to the contract and all conditions contained therein, and manage the employee against such conditions.

Having a contract in place will offer protection to the company in the event of a dispute or issue arising. This document will safeguard the company in the event of employee litigation or labour court hearings.

Contracts

Items that must be included in the written terms of employment are:

•Full name of employer

•Full name of employee

•The address of the employer

•The place of work (if there is no permanent place of work, a statement specifying that the employee is required or permitted to work at various places)

•Appointment/job role – The title or description of the job or the nature of the work for which the employee is employed

•The date of commencement of the contract

•If the contract is temporary, the expected duration of employment

•If the contract is for a fixed-term, the date on which the contract expires; if the contract is for a fixed purpose, then the details of the occurrence of that specific purpose

•The rate of pay, the method of calculation and the frequency of payment (this clause should also include provisions on any permissible deductions in accordance with the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

•The period of notice required from each party to terminate the contract

•The terms and conditions applicable to sick pay, if any

•The terms and conditions applicable to pension schemes, if any

•The terms and conditions relating to paid leave if any

•The terms or conditions relating to hours of work, including overtime

•Reference should be made to any collective agreement affecting the terms of the contract, whether or not the employer is a party to the agreement, including information about the institutions or organisations which drew up any Collective Agreement which affects the terms of the contract to which the employer is not a party.

An Employee Working Abroad is also entitled to details of the following:

•The period of employment outside the State

•The currency in which they will be paid

•Any other benefits-in-kind or cash that will be provided

•The terms and conditions applicable on the employee's return home

Contracts

Here are examples of some further terms and conditions of employment that are not required by law but are highly recommended:

•Probationary Period and Probation Policy

•Hours of work / additional hours / overtime / shift liability / weekend liability / night work liability / public holiday liability

•Performance related bonuses

•Absence Management

•Medical examination

•Holidays, public holidays, all other forms of leave

•Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures

•Confidentiality

•Company Property

•Phone and Mobile Phone Usage

•Right to Inspect / Search

•Drugs & Alcohol Policy / Right to Test for Intoxicants

•Retirement

•Company Rules and Regulations

•Bullying and Harassment / Respect and Dignity at Work

•Internet, Email & Social Media Usage

•Use of Company Vehicles

•Suspension without pay

•Break and rest periods / exemption provision for employer for recording breaks

•Return of company property

By The HR Company Administrator|2021-02-23T17:52:29+00:00June 17th, 2015|Contracts of Employment, HR Guide|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

HR Guidance for Childcare Facilities in Ireland

Crèches in Ireland have come under intense scrutiny in recent weeks. On the 28^th of May 2013 the Prime Time Investigates programme “A Breach of Trust” highlighted grave mishandling of infants in the care of a number of crèches in the Leinster region. While the programme uncovered substandard care in three specific childcare facilities it exposed widespread failures in the industry in general. The programme researchers acquired a HSE inspection report that illustrated that a staggering 75% of Irish childcare facilities were in breach of regulations in 2012. Understandably, these statistics caused uproar and opened up a huge debate on childcare standards throughout the nation. Many parents were very upset by the revelations of breaches in child protection regulations. The poor practices exposed in certain crèches distressed many people and the disturbing reports have seriously tainted the image of the childcare industry in Ireland. Crèches in Ireland, childcare facilities Subsequent to the Prime Time Investigates programme there have been two reported incidents of unaccompanied toddlers leaving crèches in Dublin while in the care of employees at the facilities. The most recent of these incidents occurred last Friday, 21^st June, where two little boys made it out of a Giraffe Crèche on the North side of Dublin. The boys were lucky to have been spotted before they made it as far as the busy road behind the building. These revelations have again raised serious concerns and the childcare industry will have to work hard in order to earn back the trust of parents. In order to protect their reputation it is absolutely vital that management in childcare facilities take the steps necessary to ensure that all employees are fully qualified for the roles in which they have been hired. It is imperative that all employees working with children are vetted thoroughly and that all relevant paperwork is in place. The HSE report from 2012 highlighted serious policy breaches and failures on numerous grounds like the child-carer ratio. It is imperative that employers seek advice from Employment Legislation experts if they need clarification on policies and procedures that they are required to have in place or if they need help in determining whether or not they have the appropriate paperwork on file. The National Employment Rights Authority (NERA) is carrying out inspections to ensure that all employers have contracts of employment in place with their employees as well as employee handbooks and so on. NERA seeks to ensure that employment paperwork is up to date with all of the recently implemented employment legislation changes. NERA inspectors can impose large fines if they find that employers are in breach of the regulations. It is essential that all facilities are adequately staffed and that management take every precaution in ensuring a high standard of protection and care for children at all times. One suggestion perhaps might be to install a CCTV system to monitor the interaction between employees and children – before doing so, however, a CCTV policy is required – again, it is essential to seek advice from the appropriate body if you are considering such a course of action. Creches in Ireland, Childcare facilities in Ireland, Mishandling of infants Reports suggested that multiple employees were suspended and at least one dismissed after the Prime Time Investigates programme aired in May of this year. Employers need to remember that, to avoid any risk of exposure, it is absolutely imperative to follow approved disciplinary procedures prior to disciplining employees. Regardless of the severity of the situation there are steps that need to be followed in order to ensure employers remain compliant with all Irish Employment Legislation. It is vital to follow procedures that are in line with the Labour Court recommendations to insulate your company against the risk of a future claim. To avoid jeopardising the process contact an Employment Law expert prior to initiating any disciplinary action and arm yourself with the appropriate guidance. childcare facilities in Ireland, Children being mishandled in Crèches

By The HR Company Administrator|2017-01-02T11:00:26+00:00June 17th, 2015|HR Guide|0 Comments

HR Guide

Employing Young People – Under 18s Register

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.

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

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

Employees Compensated €35,000 for 22km Relocation – Labour Court

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.

Disabled Employee not Accommodated by Employer Awarded €30,000!

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.

Pay Slips – Wage Deductions and Associated Employer Responsibilities

Employer Responsibilities when it comes to Contracts of Employment

An Employee Working Abroad is also entitled to details of the following:

The Importance of having an Employee Handbook

HR Guidance for Childcare Facilities in Ireland

HR Guide

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.

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.

An Employee Working Abroad is also entitled to details of the following:

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.