Covid-19 news with a HR Twist
April 2015
Protected: Calculating Annual Leave
This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below: Password:
Protected: Covert Recording at Work
This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below: Password:
September 2014
Don’t forget about e-Day
What is e-Day
e-Day is the date from which central Government, local authorities and State agencies stop issuing and accepting cheques from businesses. e-Day is today, 19th September 2014. The particular focus of e-Day is to encourage SMEs to migrate from cheque usage. Cheques are an expensive means of payment for businesses because of bank charges, stamp duty, postage, time spent making lodgements, and unpaid cheques. Businesses are migrating away from cheque usage and opting for more efficient payment methods instead. e-Day will move this process along while reducing costs for businesses.Mandatory electronic filing and payment
Revenue has introduced Regulations providing for the mandatory electronic filing, payment and repayment of certain taxes as part of a strategy to establish the use of electronic channels as the normal way of conducting tax business. Currently the vast majority of Revenue’s business customers have been brought into the mandatory regime.Cheque usage
There has been a significant reduction in business cheques received and issued by Revenue over the past number of years. This has accelerated with the phased implementation of mandatory efiling and payment.Alternative to cheques and cash
Revenue provides an extensive range of alternative payment methods to cheque and cash. The online payment methods include direct debits, single debit instructions, debit card and credit card. Payment by credit card by telephone is also available. Refunds are processed electronically direct to customers bank account.Business customers currently using cheques
Coinciding with e-Day Revenue is actively promoting the use of alternatives to cheque payments as outlined above. Those business customers currently paying or receiving refunds by cheque are advised to prepare for e-Day. ROS customers can nominate bank accounts for payments and refunds by selecting the "Manage Bank Accounts" option on their My Services tab. Alternatively business customers can contact ROS Payment Support Unit at 1890 226 336 to discuss payment solutions with the Revenue Commissioners.June 2014
European Court of Justice may find that obesity is a disability.
Last Thursday, 12th June, the European Court of Justice heard a landmark discrimination case that was brought by Karsten Kaltoft of Denmark. Mr. Kaltoft alleges that he was discriminated against when he was dismissed by his employer because of his weight (approximately 25 stone). The case is the first of its kind to be referred to the EU and could have extensive consequences.
The Danish man was employed by his local authority – Billund local authority - as a child-minder. Kaltoft claims that his weight did not affect his ability to perform his child-minding duties; however, the Court heard that he was unable to do tasks like tying a child’s shoe laces without a colleague’s help.
The question that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) must consider is whether Mr Kaltoft’s obesity falls within the classification of a “disability” under EU law.
The Court’s decision, which is expected in a few weeks, will alter the EU’s Directive on Employment Equality which outlaws discrimination on disability grounds.
The Court’s decision will be binding across all EU member states, including Ireland.
If Kaltoft is successful in his arguments, obesity will be redefined so as to be categorised as a disability.
The USA has already seen several individual workers receive compensation from their former employers as a result of being dismissed due to their obese status.
Until now, the UK courts have rejected obesity as a disability in its own right; however, if the ECJ finds that Mr. Kaltoft was, in fact, unfairly dismissed, employers throughout Europe will be bound by the ECJ ruling and will be forced to treat obesity as a disability going forward. Such a decision would, in future, force employers to make ‘reasonable’ adjustments - for instance, they may have to provide preferential access to parking (as is currently the case for disabled drivers). The ECJ ruling could also restrict employers from rejecting job candidates because of their weight.
According to a 2011 Oireachtas Library & Research Service report, ‘Obesity – a growing problem’, a staggering 61% of adults in Ireland are overweight or obese.
Body Mass Index (BMI) is a number calculated based on a person’s weight and height. Anyone with a BMI of 30 or more is classed as clinically obese.
Employers must pay attention to the ECJ decision in the Kaltoft obesity case as it may establish a precedent across all EU member states which could have major implications for employers.
April 2014
European Court of Justice declares Data Retention Directive Invalid
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) declared the Data Retention Directive invalid yesterday, 8th April, 2014, in response to a case brought by Digital Rights Ireland.
In 2006, Digital Rights Ireland initiated Court proceedings against the Irish State. The case brought the legality of the country’s data-retention legislation into question. The current data-retention legislation requires phone companies and internet service providers to store data about customer locations, e-mails, phone calls and text messages for a period not less than 6, and up to a maximum of 24, months.
In 2012, the High Court in Ireland referred the Digital Rights Ireland case to the European Court of Justice and, in 2013, the advisory legal opinion of Pedro Cruz Villalón, Advocate General, was that the Directive should be overturned. The Advocate General stated that the Directive was unlawful and not compatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
In line with the Advocate General’s advisory legal opinion of 2013, the ECJ yesterday announced that the Directive, which “entails a wide-ranging and particularly serious interference with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data”, was invalid.
