Covid-19 news with a HR Twist
June 2015
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.
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.
The Director of the Equality Tribunal delegated this case to Orlaith Mannion, Equality Officer on 13th 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.
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
Data protection in the workplace
The Data Protection Acts state that personal information held by a data controller (the Company/Organisation) should only be retained for as long as necessary for the purpose(s) for which the data was obtained. If the personal information is no longer needed, the data should be disposed of in a secure manner or deleted.
However, as the Data Protection Acts do not specify what the different retention periods are for the various types of data, companies are required to pay attention to the statutory obligations imposed on them through Employment Legislation when determining the relevant retention periods.
According to the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, employers are required to keep several records in relation to employees’ leave and rest periods – Employers are obliged to record and keep details of Annual Leave, Public Holidays, Carer’s Leave, the hours worked by each employee each day as well as detailed records of start and finish times.
There are various requirements in terms of timeframes for the retention of these records, for instance;
-
Annual Leave and Public Holiday records must be kept for 3 years
-
Carer’s Leave records must be retained for 8 years
-
Similarly, Parental Leave records and Force Majeure Leave records must be kept for 8 years
While there is no set period for the maintenance of Maternity or Adoptive Leave records, employers should ensure that they hold on to these details for a period not less than 12 months in the event that a dispute arises leading to a case – the time limit varies from 6 months to 12 months (in exceptional circumstances).
If, as an employer, you do not record employee working hours electronically (via a clock-in/clock-out system) you are required to complete a special form (an OWT1 form or a form not dissimilar to this) on a daily/weekly basis.
In relation to retaining hardcopy documents, it would be best to keep any original, signed documents on file as per the timeframes outlines above.
The key here is to ensure that the documents are available in the event that an inspection is announced. The records must be presented in a format that an inspector could easily understand.
Employers who fail to keep records as outlined above are liable, on summary conviction, to pay a fine of up to €1,900.
As an employer, you must be able to prove that you have informed each worker of his or her rights to rest/breaks. You must also be able to show that you have informed each worker that untaken breaks must be reported to you as the employer (or a representative of yours e.g. a manager).
If an employee claims that he or she was unable to take a break during work then the employer is obliged to look at the reasons for this. The employer is also responsible for looking at any health and safety issues that could have arisen as a result of this. As soon as is reasonably possible, the employer must allow the employee to take the rest period that was due to them. If the employee does not take the rest period at this stage then the matter is closed as the employer has fulfilled his or her duty by allowing the employee to take it.
Employers must even keep records on candidates who have aplied for positions within their company - even where the applicants have not been successful. The Data Commissioner considers a retention period of one full year to be appropriate in situations like this.
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.
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 31st January 2014. In accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, a Labour Court Hearing took place on 17th 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.
Loss of Twilight Hours Premium – UNITE Secures Compensation from HSE
A dispute arose recently between HSE South – Waterford Regional Hospital and UNITE Trade Union over the payment of a “Twilight Hours” premium.
The evening shift for 22 Catering Attendants employed by the HSE in Waterford Regional Hospital was Outsourced to Agency Workers and, resulting from this, as of the 28th April 2013, the Twilight Hours premium ceased to be paid.
Management’s opinion was that it was unreasonable to expect payment for a shift that was no longer worked by the Catering Attendants, however, UNITE argued that, in accordance with Section 8: Service Delivery Options of the Public Service Agreement (PSA), their members should continue to receive the payment.
As the dispute could not be resolved at local level, it became the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. Agreement was not reached at this stage and, on 18th June 2013, the case was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court Hearing took place on 15th April, 2014 where UNITE argued that the workers suffered reduced wages due to the outsourcing of the evening shift even though the PSA stated that such procurement would not result in a worsening of pay rates for employees.
The Union also argued that the payment should have continued on a personal-to-holder basis or, at the very least, compensation, calculated on the actual loss over a 12 month period beginning on the 29th April 2013, should be paid as per the PSA.
The HSE argued that it was forced to consider outsourcing as an option because the level of Catering Staff had diminished considerably and there was no alternative to this. The Employer argued that the decision was not taken lightly and its view was that the move did not worsen rates of pay as the “Twilight Hours” payment was a premium payment and the basic pay for the Catering Employees was not affected by the HSE’s decision to outsource the evening shift.
Management’s view was that the Haddington Road Agreement took precedence over the PSA and that compensation for loss of earnings should be paid to the employees for the 2 months from 29th April (when the payment ceased) to 1st July 2013, rather than 12 months as argued by UNITE.
The Court noted that the premium was no longer paid because the hours were no longer worked due to the decision to outsource. The loss was calculated as €1,430.00 per annum per Claimant and, after considering the submissions of both parties, the Court recommended that the issue be dealt with via the compensation formula provided for under the terms of the PSA 2010-2014. This meant that 50% of the identified loss should be paid with effect from 29th April with the remaining 50% payable 6 months later.
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 2nd 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.
- 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.
Advice for Employers during World Cup 2014
As I am sure you are aware, World Cup 2014 is starting today and we want to ensure that you are prepared as an employer, in the event that employee issues arise as a result of this tournament, particularly attendance at work during games and on the day following games.
The World Cup is commencing today, 12th June, and runs until 13th July. Employees should have requested this time off by now or in the coming days if they wish to take annual leave during this time for matches.
The main issues that could arise as a result of World Cup 2014, for employers, is that employees will be seeking additional time off either as annual leave or unscheduled time off. Unauthorised absence/increased sick leave may also be an issue for employers. Most games will be in the evening time - those employers who have evening/night shifts will need to be particularly prepared and pre-empt absence.
You as an employer, will first need to establish what your policy is to be during this period. Once you have decided the stance you wish to take with employees during this period, you will need to ensure this policy is clearly outlined to employees in the coming days to ensure they are clear about what is expected of them.
In deciding what you want to enforce for employees, you should pay attention to the following:
-
Inform employees that, if they wish to take time off, they must apply for annual leave immediately - and let them know that it will be on a first come, first served basis.
-
Perhaps give staff the opportunity to swap shifts with colleagues who may not be interested in the matches - ensure all shifts are adequately covered.
-
Be mindful of your employees who are not football lovers and do not want to take any time off during these games. Ensure there is fair treatment between all staff and ensure football fans are not getting special treatment and additional time off over those who do not follow the game.
-
Make it clear that all employees are expected to be in work as normal, unless they have requested time off etc., during World Cup 2014. Outline that you expect productivity and attendance etc., to remain as it is currently.
-
You could outline that for any absences during this time (within reason), due to illness; employees are required to provide a medical certificate upon their return.
-
Employees may also arrive to work still under the influence of alcohol. If this is discovered, you need to act fast. Send the employee to the company doctor immediately to be checked by the doctor to establish if the employee is under the influence of alcohol. If the employee is found to be under the influence he/she should be sent home. It may be time to engage a disciplinary process with the employee at this stage.
-
If applicable, you may consider screening the games in house as a goodwill gesture to employees.
-
Be mindful if there are a number of matches on, you will need to allow employees have their say on which match is shown..
-
-
Employees may attempt to stream matches online on work computers, the company’s internet usage policy should be outlined to employees and the company’s expectations also outlined to employees here.
The key to avoiding any issues during World Cup 2014 is to make sure you clearly outline to staff (in advance), what is expected of them and that absences etc., will not be tolerated.
The above advice is courtesy of Lorraine Byrne, Senior Account Manager at The HR Company.
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).
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.
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
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)
Carer’s Leave – What Employers need to Know.
Carer’s Leave
In accordance with the provisions of the Carer’s Leave Act, 2001, if an employee has completed 12 months’ continuous service with you; he or she is entitled to take unpaid Carer’s Leave in order to care for a person (a ‘Relevant Person’) who requires full-time care and attention. Carer's Leave is protected leave.A ‘Relevant Person’
A ‘Relevant Person’ is a person who is over the age of 16 and is so incapacitated as to require full-time care and attention or a person who is under 16 and in receipt of a Domiciliary Care Allowance. A Deciding Officer of the Department of Social Protection determines whether or not an individual qualifies as a ‘Relevant Person’. Employees may be entitled to receive Carer’s Benefit/Carer’s Allowance whilst on leave. You should inform employees that they should apply to the Carer’s Benefit Section at their local Social Welfare Office so their eligibility can be assessed. There is no statutory obligation on you as an employer to pay employees during Carer’s Leave.Entitlements
Other than their right to remuneration, you should treat employees as though they have been working during a period of Carer’s Leave. Annual Leave and Public Holidays will accrue as normal for employees during the first 13 weeks of Carer’s Leave. The minimum statutory entitlement is 13 leave weeks and the maximum period is 104 weeks. The 104 weeks (2 years) can be taken in one continuous block or it can be broken up into multiple separate periods of leave – there must be a gap of at least 6 weeks between periods of Carer’s Leave.
Application/Notification
If one of your employees intends to avail of Carer’s Leave then he or she should write to you not less than 6 weeks before the proposed commencement of the leave in order to apply for this leave. The application should include the following details: - The manner in which the employee intends to take the leave
- The proposed commencement date and, where possible, end date (this won’t always be possible – especially if the ‘Relevant Person’ is terminally ill; for instance)
- That he or she has made an application to the Department of Social Protection for a decision to be made in respect of the person for whom they propose to avail of the leave
Termination of Carer’s Leave
Carer’s Leave may be terminated for several reasons. If it becomes apparent that the person for whom the care is being provided is not in need of full-time care any longer for whatever reason, you may terminate the leave. The Department of Social Protection will make a decision in certain instances. To download our Staff Suggestion Form click the image below ->
Annual Leave Calculation, all hours to be included
Did you know that all hours worked by any employee are taken into account when calculating Annual Leave?
This will include any hours worked in addition to normal working hours.
Further to this there are additional leave periods that will be included when calculating Annual Leave for an employee:
- Maternity Leave
- Public Holidays
- Adoptive leave
- Parental Leave
- The first 13 weeks of Carers leave
- Force Majeure Leave
These are protected leave periods and therefore Employees continue to accrue Annual Leave while on any of the above listed leaves.
Leave that is not included when calculating Annual Leave for an employee:
- Sick Leave
- Occupational Injury (sick leave as a result of such injury)
- Temporary Lay-off
- Career Break
Employers slowly beginning to ban e-cigarettes in Irish workplaces.
Employers are starting to implement e-smoking bans in workplaces in line with the current tobacco smoking ban. In March 2014 Bus Eireann and Dublin Bus extended their respective “no smoking” policies to prohibit the use of e-cigarettes and vapour devices on their busses – employees, as well as customers, are banned from smoking any form of cigarette except in designated areas. Irish Rail also implemented the ban in the recent past and now universities and other institutions and companies are beginning to follow suit by disallowing the use of cigarette substitutes. There are a few reasons for this -
- To avoid ambiguity – from a distance e-cigarettes can appear quite like a regular cigarette.
- Because e-cigarettes contain nicotine – nicotine is a highly addictive and harmful drug. Nicotine was formerly used as an insecticide and can increase blood pressure and heart rate in humans.
- Because the effects of e-smoking are not yet known – e-cigarettes are a relatively new innovation and consequently the long-term effects on health are unclear.
- Because of the vapour omitted – there is uncertainty over the contents and effects of this vapour on the e-cigarette smoker and the people in his or her presence.
While there is no legislation currently in place in Ireland disallowing the use of e-cigarettes and similar products in the workplace, more and more employers are beginning to enforce their own internal rules in relation to their use at work.
However, if the rules around e-smoking in the workplace are not covered in the Employee Handbook, the employer could find it difficult to enforce such a policy. The rules surrounding e-cigarettes should be available for all employees - non-e-smokers as well as e-smokers - so there is no confusion over what is/is not allowed.
If an employer is considering revising the company’s policies then it is imperative that he or she ensures that the new rules are clearly communicated to employees through an update of the Employee Handbook (which should contain all HR policies).
At least two employees in The United Kingdom have recently brought cases forward claiming that they were “victimised” by their employers for use of e-cigarettes in the course of their work. It is only a matter of time before we start to see cases trickle through the system in Ireland and so it would serve employers well to prepare for this potentially costly exposure by introducing very clear policies in relation to e-cigarettes as soon as possible.
Employee unfairly dismissed for improper internet use awarded €7,000.
Why is having an internet use/social media policy so important?
On 17th December 2013, the Employment Appeals Tribunal in Mullingar heard a claim that an employee had been unfairly dismissed by her employer, a wholesale electrical company that employed approximately 36 employees. The individual was employed as a Marketing Assistant from 1 November 2010. With the permission of the employer, the employee worked a three day week for the first year as she was completing a graphic design course simultaneously. The employer was happy for the employee to begin working a 5 day week on 1st November 2011. The Managing Director claimed that both he and the Office Manager had warned the claimant on a number of occasions about her non-work related internet use. According to the Managing Director, these alleged warnings were of a verbal nature. The Managing Director gave evidence to the Tribunal that, on 16 January 2012, he observed the claimant on a social media site and called her to his office before proceeding to dismiss her from her employment with the Company. The Managing Director believed that the actions of the claimant amounted to a waste of the Company’s time and resources and her actions constituted gross misconduct. It became apparent that the Company did not have a formal internet use/social media policy in place while the claimant was employed. It also came to light that the employee did not receive a contract of employment nor did she receive a copy of the Company’s disciplinary procedures. The claimant stated that she completed all tasks that were assigned to her. She was not using the internet in a secretive way (she gave evidence that her computer monitor was in full view of the office) and she did not believe that she was doing anything wrong when she was online. The claimant testified that she was not given a job description detailing the tasks that were assigned to her. The former employee explained that, if she was aware of the company’s policy around internet use/social media then she would have abided by it. The claimant stated that she regularly asked for more assignments to complete during her work hours but was not provided with enough to occupy all of her working time. The employee explained that she was told in December to “wind down” for the Christmas period when she looked for more work from the Managing Director’s son. The claimant admitted to spending time browsing the internet when she had finished with her work assignments but clarified that she spent the majority of her time on the internet carrying out work related activities. The claimant gave evidence that she never received any warnings prior to her dismissal. The Employment Appeals Tribunal considered all of the evidence that was submitted by the claimant and the respondent and concluded that the dismissal of the employee was unfair as, according to the Tribunal, there appears not to have been any valid grounds for the termination. In addition to this the Tribunal found that the dismissal was lacking any procedural fairness because no investigation or disciplinary process took place. The Tribunal also made note of the fact that the claimant was never provided with a any of the following documents throughout the course of her employment:
- A contract of employment,
- Payslips,
- An internet use/social media policy
- A copy of the Company’s disciplinary procedures
Saving Money by Minimising Waste
The Significance of Waste Management in Business. With mounting expenses it is becoming increasingly difficult for companies to remain in operation and to maintain employee numbers.
Managers are faced with a difficult task as they are continuously asked to reduce costs while simultaneously preserving the quality and service levels throughout the business.
Every company should implement a minimum waste policy to encourage employees to be more aware of their actions and their use or misuse of resources in the workplace and beyond.
Minimising the amount of waste in any organisation will have a positive effect on the bottom line. Consequently, introducing a minimum waste policy is essential if the business is to operate in the most cost-effective and efficient manner possible.
Employees should be obliged to avoid extravagant use of the company’s services, time and energy. Employees should be encouraged to take extra care during their normal work duties by avoiding unnecessary use of any resources within the Company.
Employees should be trained so that they handle all machines, equipment and stock with the utmost of care. Employers should have a policy in place that deals with the conservation of energy.
This policy would direct employees as to how they should proceed when it comes to dealing with lights and heat and so on. The use of all unnecessary lighting and heating should be prohibited and lights/heat should be turned off when their use is not required.
Doors/windows should be opened/closed where possible in order to maintain temperature levels. Similarly, taps should not be allowed to drip and any concerns about resources should be reported to management so that they may be evaluated and rectified.
The use of paper and ink throughout the course of the working day is something that a lot of companies find to be expensive. It is important that employees only print items that they need to have in hardcopy in order to reduce the waste of paper and ink. It is also significant for employers to encourage employees to print on both sides where possible. E-mailing, rather than posting, documents is another practice that should be encouraged. Recycling/reusing paper, where possible, is also a practice that should be considered.
If it is a case that an employee finds himself or herself without assignments to complete during working hours or if their work has come to a standstill for one reason or another then he or she should be encouraged to offer assistance to colleagues who have yet to complete their workload.
In terms of productivity, employees should be prepared to start their working day by the time they are scheduled to begin work and should proceed with their work-related activities without delay. The same process should be followed after break/lunch periods and employees should not conclude their work until the time that they are scheduled to do so.
If it becomes apparent that certain employees are struggling to organise their time then the provision of time-management training should be considered by management. It is also important to ensure that employees are aware of the most efficient methods of carrying out routine tasks (such as searching for documents or preparing spreadsheets) so time is used in the most efficient manner possible.
There are many techniques that a company can use to improve efficiency and exploring and implementing these methods is very important if a company is to remain competitive.Trade Disputes and Industrial Action
According to the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 a Trade Dispute is any dispute between employers and employees that is “connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms or conditions of or affecting the employment, of any person”. Industrial Action is collective action taken by employees to compel their employer to “accept or not to accept terms or conditions of or affecting employment.”
Typically, employees decide to take industrial action as a result of a grievance over pay, hours of work, holidays or in support of a co-worker (or former co-worker) who is deemed to have been treated unfairly in some way.
Examples of industrial action may include strike action, a picket, a ‘work-to-rule’ or even an overtime ban. Employers should make every effort to avoid industrial action by maintaining a harmonious working environment because industrial action can be an extremely trying time for all concerned.
A strike is a work stoppage that is caused by the mass refusal of employees to carry out their work activities. Strikes and industrial action in general, are extremely disruptive to a company’s daily operations and can be damaging in both the short and long term. Strikes can last varying amounts of time but even short work stoppages tend to be quite destructive for companies as they can carry negative publicity with them along with the obvious operational drawbacks.
A picket is a form of protest where picketers (those involved in the picket) assemble outside of their workplace, or a relevant area, in an attempt to draw attention to their cause or to discourage others from entering the premises (crossing the picket line). The objective of picketing is to harm the company via a loss of business or through negative publicity. The goal is to persuade the employer to meet picketers’ demands to cease certain activities or introduce a pay increase or reverse a decision regarding redundancies, for instance.
A ‘work-to-rule’ is where employees do the bare minimum during their work hours. They carry out the tasks required by their contract of employment and nothing more in order to slow down productivity. Employees seek to demonstrate that they are valuable to the company and perform tasks that are above and beyond what they are contractually obliged to do on a regular basis.
An overtime ban is similar to a ‘work-to-rule’ in that employees take direction from their contracts of employment. Throughout an overtime ban, employees only work the hours that they are bound by in their contract. As the name suggests, employees refuse to work any overtime.
Strikes in the news:
Services Industrial Professional and Technical Union (SIPTU) employees at Dublin Street Parking Services, the vehicle clamping Company in Dublin, are due to be balloted today, Monday, 10th March 2014, on whether or not they should go on strike.
The dispute is over an outstanding pay rise that is owed since 2011. John King, SIPTU Organiser, stated that it is likely that the members will decide to strike over the 2.5% pay rise that they agreed to postpone until 2013 because they are still waiting for it to be applied.
Dublin City Council is threatening to pay the Company less for the service it provides if it does not meet the new target of 60,000 clamped vehicles per year.
SIPTU employees of the DAA and Aer Lingus are also threatening strike action as the dispute over their pension scheme continues. They are due to hold a four hour work stoppage at Dublin, Cork and Shannon on Friday, 14th March 2014 – just as the airport gets busy for the St. Patrick’s Day weekend. This strike could prove to be extremely disruptive to many individuals hoping to travel during the four hour stoppage and for the hours, and potentially days, that follow.