Covid-19 news with a HR Twist
June 2015
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.
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.
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.
No Adoptive or Maternity Leave Ireland for "Commissioning Mothers"
In September 2013 the legal opinion of the European Court of Justice was that an Irish teacher (Ms. Z), whose child was born through surrogacy, did not have an automatic right to either paid Adoptive Leave or Maternity Leave from her employment.
On 18th March 2014 a European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling, that referred to the mother who did not give birth to the child as the “commissioning mother”, upheld this opinion. The ruling stressed that it is the birth mother who should benefit from Maternity Leave even where she does not keep the baby after giving birth and even in cases where the mother who takes on the responsibility of the child after birth is the biological mother. The reason for this is to improve the health and safety of pregnant workers and and those who have recently given birth.
Ms. Z and her husband are the baby’s full genetic parents. When Ms. Z’s application for paid Adoptive Leave was denied she brought a complaint to the Equality Tribunal. The woman, who has no uterus as a result of a rare medical condition, claimed that she was discriminated against on the grounds of sex, family status and disability.
The woman was told by her employer that she could take unpaid Parental Leave instead of the requested Adoptive Leave; however, as the child was genetically hers and her name was on the American birth certificate, Ms. Z felt that she was being treated unfairly.
The surrogacy scenario can be a challenging one for all concerned and blurred lines surrounding what mothers are entitled to in the workplace just adds to the complexity of the situation.The Equality Tribunal referred the case to the ECJ and the Court ruled yesterday that mothers like Ms. Z do not have any automatic right to Adoptive Leave or Maternity Leave.
In September 2013, the legal opinion of the Advocate General stated that Ms. Z’s differential treatment was not based on sex, family status or disability, as claimed, but instead on the “refusal of national authorities to equate her situation with that of either a woman who has given birth or an adoptive mother”.
The Court ruled that Ms. Z did not fall within the scope of the Pregnant Worker’s Directive as the Directive in question presupposes that the worker has been pregnant or has given birth to a child. The claim of discrimination on the grounds of sex failed as fathers in this situation are also denied leave. The claim of discrimination on the grounds of disability also failed as, the judgement stated that, while “a woman’s inability to bear her own child may be a source of great suffering” it does not amount to ‘disability’. The concept of ‘disability’ within the EU Employment Equality Framework Directive “presupposes that the limitation, from which the person suffers, in interaction with various barriers, may hinder that person’s full and effective participation in professional life on an equal basis with other workers”.
The recent revelation, that Irish women who have babies through surrogacy arrangements are not afforded the same rights as mothers who have adopted or given birth to their babies, has highlighted the uncertainties/complexities surrounding the issue of surrogacy in both Irish and EU law.
Surrogacy is becoming a more frequent option for women; however, legislation in Ireland has not kept up with this change.
The ECJ stated that member states are “free to apply more favourable rules for commissioning mothers” and paid leave for mothers, who have children through surrogacy arrangements, is being legislated for in The United Kingdom.
On 30th January 2014, Justice Minister Alan Shatter published the General Scheme of Children and Family Relationships Bill for consultation. According to Minister Shatter, the draft bill ‘seeks to provide legal clarity on the parentage of children born through assisted human reproduction and surrogacy’.
The Applicable Minimum Notice Periods for Employees in Ireland
The Minimum Notice Acts 1973 to 2005 ensure that every employee who has been in the continuous employment of his or her employer for at least 13 weeks is entitled to a minimum notice period before you, as the employer, may dismiss that employee. The statutory period varies depending on the length of service (outlined below). It is essential to note that if you do not require the employee to work out their notice you, as the employer, are obliged to pay the employee for the applicable period.
- If the employment lasted between 13 weeks and 2 years the Acts provide that you should pay the employee one week's notice before termination of employment
- If the length of service is between 2 and 5 years then the notice period must be 2 weeks
- For 5 to 10 years then the appropriate notice is 4 weeks
- From 10 to 15 years then 6 weeks’ notice must be given
- For more than 15 years the employee is entitled to a notice period of 8 weeks.
If it is the employee that has made the decision to terminate the employment contract and he or she has carried out 13 weeks of continuous employment with the company then he or she is obliged to serve you, as the employer, with notice 1 week prior to the departure date (unless the contract of employment provides for a longer notice period).
It is important to bear in mind that the Acts do not apply to:
- Members of the Permanent Defence Forces (except temporary staff in the Army Nursing Service
- Members of An Garda Síochán
- Seamen signing on under the Merchant Shipping Ac
- The immediate family of the employer (provided they live with the employer and work in the same private house or farm
- Established civil servants
It is very important to note that the Acts do not affect your right or that of the employee to terminate a contract of employment without notice due to the gross misconduct of the other party.
A Workplace Relations Customer Services department has been set up at the offices of the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. This resulted from the amalgamation of the information services previously provided by the National Employment Rights Authority’s Contact Centre and the general enquiries areas of the Equality Tribunal, the Rights Commissioner Service and the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
This section has responsibility for:
- information provision in relation to employment, equality and Industrial Relations rights and obligations
- the receipt and registration of all complaints referred to the five Workplace Relations Bodies, and
- dealing with enquiries concerning all complaints.
From 3rd January 2012 all complaints to the Workplace Relations Bodies have been channelled through Workplace Relations Customer Services, where they are registered, acknowledged and referred to the relevant adjudication body.
Breaks and Rest Periods in the Irish Workplace
Under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 every single employee in Ireland has a legal entitlement to breaks during their working day (or night) and is entitled to have clearly defined rest periods between their working days/nights.
Under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 a rest period is defined as any time that is not ‘working time’.
In general, an employee is entitled to a 15 minute break after the completion of 4.5 hours of work. If the employee is working a shift of 6 hours then he or she is entitled to a 30 minute break (the first break of 15 minutes can be included in this 30 minute break allocation).
The employer is not obliged to pay employees for these break periods and they are not included when counting the total amount of time that the employee has worked.
The regulations vary slightly for different categories of employees - for instance, shop employees who work more than 6 hours at a time are entitled to a break of one consecutive hour between the hours of 11:30 and 14:30 if they are scheduled to be in the workplace during that time.
Employees are entitled to 11 consecutive hours of rest in a 24 hour period – on top of this, an employee should receive 24 consecutive rest hours in every 7 day period and this 24 hour allocation should follow an 11 hour rest period.
Where an employer does not give his or her employee a full 24 hour consecutive rest period throughout the course of one week he or she must give two of these 24 hour rest periods in the following week. This rest period, unless otherwise stated, should include a Sunday.
Not all employees are governed by the break and rest period rules described above. Members of An Garda Síochána, The Defence Forces and employees who manage their own working hours are exempt. Family employees on farms or in private homes are also excluded from the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 directives.
The working terms and conditions for people under the age of 18 differ from those listed here. They are regulated by the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1996.
In exceptional circumstances or emergencies an employer is exempt from providing the above mentioned rest periods but only where he or she provides equivalent compensatory rest. Where the rest period is postponed the employer must allow the employee to take the compensatory rest within a reasonable period of time. Employees working in transport activities or certain categories of civil protection services are exempt from the statutory break regulations specified above (the equivalent compensatory rest rules do not apply for these employees).
Employers should be aware that employees have 6 months to make a complaint regarding breaks and rest periods in the workplace (in extreme circumstances this period can be extended to 12 months).
Why Not to Ignore Stress in the Workplace
In recent years Stress and Work Related Stress (WRS) have been cited more and more regularly on medical certificates provided to employers when employees are out of work on sick leave. While, for some people, a certain amount of stress can actually act as a challenge or a motivating factor, Work Related Stress generally has an adverse effect on employees and, consequently, on business operations. A broad definition of Work Related Stress (WRS) is a negative personal state that arises in response to aspects of the work environment or how a person perceives the work environment to be. Work Related Stress gives the sufferer the feeling that he or she cannot cope with their current situation and that the demands placed upon them exceed their ability to actually fulfil those demands. The source of this Work Related Stress can lie in the home or personal life of the sufferer and can be exacerbated by work issues or it can come directly from the work environment. The origin of the stress varies depending on many factors.
Causes of stress can include, for example:
- a lack of definition or ambiguity around organisational tasks,
- a lack of control or support,
- poor relationships with colleagues,
- long working hours,
- unachievable deadlines and time pressures,
- too many tasks to complete at one time,
- significant change to an employee’s role,
- expansion of the company,
- poor systems for dealing with bullying,
- a sense of job insecurity and
- barriers to communication
Stress that manifests itself in the workplace can lead to higher accident levels and higher levels of absenteeism due to ill-health. It can lead to low morale and issues with productivity. All of these have very negative implications for employees as well as employers.
Stress can have short or longer lasting effects – this depends on many factors; the number and severity of the issues leading to the stress, the person involved and their response to the issues (e.g. their age/personality style/emotional state), the length of exposure and the internal/external support structures available to the sufferer.
Stress can cause anger and frustration – it can lead to irritability and emotional distress or depression. In extreme circumstances it can lead to an inability to sleep properly as well as unhealthy habits such as gambling, smoking, drinking and eating irregularly. Medical conditions such as high blood pressure are associated with prolonged or extreme periods of stress.
Stress can manifest itself in many different forms. According to the Health and Safety Authority’s booklet on Work-Related Stress the effects of stress fall into four categories: Mental, Physical, Behavioural and Cognitive.
What this means is that stress can negatively impact how the mind works, how the body works, the things that we do (voluntarily and involuntarily) and the way that we think.
It is clear that it is in everyone’s best interest to limit Work Related Stress where possible.
Stress can necessitate remedial action in order to reverse its effects – this can be something as simple as a minor change in eating, sleeping or exercising practices or it can require something as extreme as inpatient care in a clinic or hospital.
Employers in Ireland are obliged, as far as is reasonably practicable, to ensure that the health and safety of their employees is not under threat. Employers must not place unreasonable demands on employees in the course of their employment.
It is essential for employers to put preventative measures in place. We advise employers to carry out risk assessments in order to ensure that demands on employees are reasonable. A risk assessment or audit should highlight any problem areas and these should be addressed as soon as possible to avoid the emergence of Work Related Stress.
Absenteeism, staff turnover, levels of injury rates of illness are less of a concern in companies where employees cite low levels of Work Related Stress so investing some time and resources in preventative measures is a worthwhile activity.
Employers can help to reduce Work Related Stress by ensuring that organisational and employee goals are clear. Stress can also be minimised if employers respect their employees and give them constructive feedback and recognition on their performance. Practicing consistent and fair management methods will limit stress levels. Allowing employees to be involved in the decision making process will also have a positive effect on the levels of stress experienced by employees within an organisation.
The HR Company provides Mediation to Resolve Workplace Disputes
The HR Company provides Mediation as an Alternative Dispute Resolution practice.
Workplace mediation involves a third, neutral party bringing two disputing individuals (or groups) together in order to reach an agreement that satisfies both sides.This type of dispute resolution is gaining credibility as an alternative to court/formal proceedings and The HR Company employs experienced mediators who help your workplace to return to a healthy environment.
As many of us know, clashes in the workplace can be extremely disruptive – not just to those directly involved but to bystanders also. Conflicts can arise for multiple reasons – for example, they can be as a result of a dispute over performance or something as simple as a personality clash. Conflict can severely impede an organisation’s ability to run efficiently and can damage employee well-being. It can cause stress, anxiety and depression. Conflict can increase employee turnover and can negatively influence reputation in the industry as well as delaying the Company’s achievement of its corporate goals.
Another negative consequence of a dispute in the workplace is a decrease in productivity levels. Similarly, morale within the Company can be influenced in a negative manner as a result of work-related disputes and levels of employee absence can also increase. It is clear that workplace disputes can have extensive side effects.
In an effort to resolve matters, parties are regularly forced to attend Employment Appeals Tribunal/Labour Court proceedings. However, this is not always the best course of action as, in our experience; these processes can often lead to a complete breakdown in relationships and can prove to be extremely lengthy and costly.
In fact, these methods can often aggravate matters as, typically, only one party is satisfied with the conclusion and resources, including time and finances, have often been significantly drained throughout the process.
In some instances, mediation can be an acceptable alternative to court proceedings when disputes arise in the workplace. Mediation is a confidential process where our experienced mediators encourage both parties to discuss all elements of the dispute without fear that their legal position could be compromised or prejudiced. Mediation can encourage a more swift resolution of differences and aims to find a solution that satisfies all parties while avoiding the types of adversarial procedures that have become very common in this era of increased employee litigation. Efficient working relationships can often be restored through the practice of mediation.
Mediation is an informal approach to dispute resolution. It can be used in an attempt to resolve a vast range of differences. In our experience, mediation is most effective when introduced at the initial phase of disagreements, however, it can also be availed of later in the process – after Tribunal proceedings have concluded, for instance. At this stage mediation could assist in repairing the relationship between the parties that have been in conflict.
When we are engaged by a Company to perform mediation, an unbiased facilitator assists the two parties to a dispute in reaching an agreement by listening to and understanding both sides to the story. The purpose of a skilled mediator is to encourage the parties to arrive at a mutually satisfactory solution. Our role as a neutral third party is not to judge or to determine who is at fault but, instead, to enable the meaningful exchange of information between parties with an ultimate goal of resolving the conflict. The HR Company mediator will not determine the outcome – this should come from the disputing parties. Mediation is morally binding but normally does not carry any legal status. There is usually one mediator or two co-mediators.
One significant advantage of mediation is that it tends to be far less of a financial burden when compared to formal proceedings. Both parties to a dispute are encouraged by The HR Company’s skilled mediator to talk very honestly and openly during the process and, as a consequence of that, mediation can assist in the discovery and resolution of the root cause of the conflict that exists in the workplace and can prevent the same situation from arising in the future. This is less likely to be the case in a Tribunal type scenario.
Mediation is not always a suitable dispute resolution method, however, if it is determined that it is appropriate then it can involve either an internal scheme or an external provider like The HR Company. Internal schemes mainly exist in larger organisations.
During mediation The HR Company’s neutral mediator chairs the process which helps to dispel tension that may have built up between disputing parties. It is vital that levels of tension in the workplace are minimal especially where the parties are expected to continue to work together. The process can take an entire day or more. Either way the process is far less time consuming than going through the courts.
Mediation is beneficial because it is a voluntary non-confrontational process – both parties will be more likely to co-operate as neither is obliged to be involved in the process.
The stages of mediation are as follows:
- Normally, both parties meet with the mediator separately initially so that the procedure can be discussed and so each party has the opportunity to illustrate their ideal outcome.
- Usually a joint meeting is then scheduled in order that the issues may be heard.
- Next, the issues are explored and an agreement is drawn up. The mediator will support the parties in solving their problems and will assist in ensuring that the agreements are workable. If he or she feels that it is necessary, the skilled mediator will separate the parties and will deal with them individually at various points.
- The last stage in the process includes the explanation of responsibilities and the distribution of a copy of the agreement to all involved.
Labour Court rules – ‘Working in the Rain’ allowance to stay
A group of 27 low income cleaners who work for the South Dublin County Council were delighted yesterday, Thursday 20th March 2014, when they were successful in their fight to keep their ‘Working In The Rain’ allowance which works out at approximately €50 per week per employee.
The Labour Court ruling was in response to attempts by South Dublin County Council to abolish the allowance. Brendan O’Brien of SIPTU described the ruling as a ‘significant victory’ as the outcome has been hanging over the workers involved for an extended period of time. The workers, who perform street and park cleaning duties for the Council, are paid between €400 and €500 on average per week so the ‘Working In The Rain’ allowance amounts to approximately 10% of their income each week.
The cost of the ‘Working In The Rain’ allowance to the Council is approximately €75,000 per year and the Council claimed that this payment is outdated because all of the employees now have the benefit of protective clothing to ensure they can carry out their duties safely - irrespective of the external weather conditions. The Council claimed that the group of 27 workers affected by this ruling are currently part of a larger group of approximately 140 workers who are all required to work in rainy weather conditions (unless it is unsafe to do so).
SIPTU argued that the payment is pensionable and, consequently, to cease paying the allowance would breach the terms of the Haddington Road Agreement.
The dispute, which could not be resolved at local level, was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission and, when no agreement was reached there the dispute between the workers and the Council was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
The Labour Court ruled that the Claimants (the workers) are entitled to retain the allowance on a personal to holder basis.
10 tips on creating a Positive Work Environment
A Positive Working Environment is essential in order to ensure high levels of productivity. This kind of workplace promotes efficiency and makes sure staff are satisfeid in their roles and with their colleagues. A Positive working environment ensures conflict in the workplace is minimal and daily business operations, in general, run smoothly!
What to do to create a Positive Working Environment...
- Build Trust between all stakeholders
- Communicate Positively and Openly – Transparency is key
- Create Team Spirit – Cooperation and Synergy is hugely important
- Be an approachable employer/manager so that issues are raised early
- Expect the best from your employees and they will be encouraged to give you their best
- Recognise your employees and their hard work and they will always work hard for you
- Give credit where credit is due and take responsibility for your actions
- Carry out employee evaluations and reviews and make the experience a positive one
- Provide a physical environment that is positive – make them want to come to work
- Make the work environment interesting – this will encourage creative thinking
Click the image below to download your Staff Suggestions Form
Why Companies are choosing to Outsource their HR
The number of cases annually referred to the Employment Appeals Tribunal increased three fold during the Irish economic recession and the average compensation awarded by the Tribunal in Unfair Dismissal cases rose from €11,476.00 to €18,047.85 between 2009 and 2011.
During this time of economic hardship Employers must pay even closer attention than ever before to their expenditure. Many organisations are forced to downsize and - in this era of increased Employee Litigation - making sure you follow appropriate procedures in redundancy or disciplinary scenarios, for example, is growing in importance.
It is at times like these that Companies need to concentrate on their Human Resource functions even more. Some elements of HR, however, can be both complicated and time consuming – an enormous burden on Employers. In recent years the focus has moved towards legal compliance (which can be a minefield with all of the pieces of Employment Legislation currently in operation) and administrative processes that can slow down the productivity of the firm.
For SMEs in particular, it makes a lot of business sense to outsource HR tasks as firms specialising in the field can improve efficiency dramatically. Outsourcing allows Companies to offload work that isn’t part of their core business. It also saves money. At a Company that doesn’t have the funds to hire specialists outsourcing can allow it to gain access to a vendor’s services when required as well as the expertise and wealth of experience that they have accumulated – all at an affordable price.
While SMEs don’t have the same number of Employees as larger corporations and multinationals they still require the same HR elements on a smaller scale. For instance, they still need to recruit staff, they still need to abide by the vast array of Employment Laws and still require Employment Documentation (Contracts of Employment etc.).
Although some Companies do it, most SMEs cannot justify spending a large portion of their annual budget setting up a HR department comprehensive enough to incorporate the abundance of skills required to achieve a smooth-functioning, compliant working environment. Consequently, more and more Companies are choosing to outsource operations like HR and are directing vital, scarce, finances and resources towards other core/revenue-generating areas of the business.
On the other hand, some Employers end up trying to balance HR duties in addition to their other responsibilities which can leave opportunities for threats and vulnerabilities to creep in. As time goes by many Employers are realising that assigning a large percentage of their time to one area is not just inconvenient but impractical, too. Juggling all elements of a business without assistance can be extremely difficult and for this reason many Employers are opting for the cost-effective third party route which involves the use of an external HR Company. This gives them enhanced peace of mind and confidence that they are working within the confines of all Employment Legislation. Outsourcing Companies can deal with HR successfully and as a priority so that Employers do not have to concern themselves with the associated time constraints and conflicts. Companies can eliminate exposures they did not even know existed quickly and in a cost-effective manner by availing of the services of a HR Company.
HR Companies deal with all features of Human Resources comprehensively. They have a base of specialist Employees who are trained and experienced in all areas of Employment Law – meaning they are fully equipped to deal with any Employee Relations issues that arise in the workplace. Engaging the services of HR professionals gives Employers access to a bank of relevant knowledge and experience. HR Companies are well prepared to support or advise SMEs without costing an arm and a leg. They keep up-to-date with all changes in Irish Employment Legislation and are able to offer better support and guidance than the client can attain in-house. Navigating Government regulations can be a draining activity for Employers - it can be a time consuming and complicated process, however, it is what HR advisors are trained to do.
HR firms can do a lot more than you might think – not alone do they have a top-class portfolio of skills, knowledge and experience concentrated in this specific area. They can offer a range of services and support at an extremely affordable price. Some HR Companies provide comprehensive services for as little as €100 per month – Hiring a HR Employee, even on a part-time basis, would cost far in excess of this. Similarly, many Employers currently engage the services of Solicitors to prepare Contracts of Employment and other Employment Documentation – this can also be an extremely costly process.
HR Companies prepare Employment Documentation for their clients and on top of that they are there to advise on all individual Employee-related issues – discrimination claims, rest or annual leave entitlements, disciplinary and redundancy procedures, dismissals, grievances and much more. Lots of Companies operate outside of office hours and so some HR Companies even provide 24/7 advice lines for their clients meaning a client will never have an anxious wait for an answer. HR firms also provide support to existing HR departments within Companies - the level of service and associated costs are completely dependent on the needs of the individual Company.
HR firms are growing in popularity. In the past outsourcing was often a difficult process because of the issues distance can sometimes create. Thanks to the advances in technology, however, dedicated HR experts are only a couple of clicks or a phone call away – so Human Resource emergencies can be dealt with on the spot.
Reasons influencing decision to co-source:
Improve cost-effectiveness
Reduce administrative costs
Redirect HR focus toward strategy/planning
Allow company to focus on core business
Provide seamless delivery of services
Capitalise on technological advantages/expertise
Improve customer service
Have insufficient staff
Decrease response time to clients
Increase flexibility in handling special needs
Increase level of accuracy
Control legal risk/improve compliance
Tangible Cost Savings:
Reduce employee turnover
Control absenteeism
Efficient use of HR systems & applications
Reduce administration costs
Flexible cost base
Training expense
Hiring costs
Employers must maintain terms & conditions of Employees on Maternity Leave
Equality Tribunal awards €80k to employee subjected to discriminatory treatment. The former employee (the complainant) in this case commenced employment with her employer (the respondent) in 2003 – She was appointed Financial Controller in 2007 and her employment ended in February 2011. She referred a complaint under the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2008 to the Equality Tribunal on 12 July, 2011.
The respondent, who had gone into liquidation by the time the Hearing took place in December, 2013 did not attend the Hearing. The liquidator, who received adequate notice of the Hearing, chose not to attend either. The Hearing proceeded in their absence and the complainant built a case against her former employer in front of Equality Officer, Vivian Jackson.
According to the complainant’s uncontested evidence, she informed her employer that she was expecting her third child in November 2009. She alleged that her employer’s attitude towards, and treatment of, her worsened from this point. She had had a miscarriage in the summer of 2009 and, according to the complainant (Ms. M), her employer (Mr. W) responded to her November pregnancy news with the comment “Jesus Lisa, you don’t hang around”. The complainant gave evidence that a few weeks after this comment her employer again referenced her pregnancy but this time it was in front of clients and his comment shocked her. The complainant gave evidence that Mr. W implied to the clients that he was not happy that she was pregnant and stated that ‘she was meant to stop after two’. The complainant described an incident in January 2010 where she was involved in a car accident. She claimed that a doctor certified her as unfit for work for a week in order to ensure that she and her unborn baby were unharmed. Even though she did not have access to a vehicle for the period, the respondent told her that she was required to attend work the following Monday. Ms. M complied with her employer’s request because she was fearful of losing her job. In February 2010, Ms. M requested a meeting in order to discuss cover during her maternity leave - this was due to begin at the end of April 2010. Mr. W agreed to hire an employee during the period that Ms. M was due to be on her protected leave. The complainant was under the impression that the new hire would begin work on a fixed term contract, however, during the course of the interview the successful applicant, Ms. S, asked about the duration of the contract and, to the complainant’s surprise, Mr. W said that he was ‘not sure that Lisa will be coming back to work’. The complainant said that she had never implied that she would not return to work and, in fact, not returning was ‘undesirable from a personal and professional point of view and impossible from a financial perspective’. The complainant gave evidence that the respondent ‘froze her out’ – he undermined her with clients and changed arrangements regularly. He also began removing tasks from the complainant. Ms. M believes that this occurred because her employer no longer felt that, with three children, she would be committed to the company. The complainant demonstrated times where she had shown considerable commitment to the company in the past and said that the employer had no reason to believe that her commitment would diminish. The complainant sought a meeting with Mr. W prior to her leaving for her maternity leave – she wanted to discuss her remuneration and benefits during the leave. In the past, the employee had been allowed to keep her company phone and car during the leave and the employer also topped up her state maternity benefit so she continued to receive her normal monthly net income throughout her maternity leave. This time it was different – Mr. W only offered the complainant a top-up payment of €150 per month – far less than what was offered during previous leave periods. Ms. M accepted this. To her surprise, Ms. M was obliged to return her company car and phone for the duration of her leave on this occasion. Ms. M was due to complete her maternity leave at the end of January 2011 and in December 2010 she contacted her employer to give notice of her intention to return to work. She did not receive a response to this e-mail and so she e-mailed Ms. S, who had been hired to cover the period of maternity leave. Ms. S confirmed that Mr. W had received the complainant’s e-mail. Ms. S sent another e-mail on 6th January 2011 requesting that Ms. M attend a meeting with Mr. W on 14th January. At this meeting, Ms M was notified that her role of Financial Controller no longer existed in its previous format within the new company structure. Ms M was informed that the role was redundant and that another position was available to her as an alternative. The new position was a more junior role that not only incorporated additional hours but also a 40% reduction in pay. Ms M was not satisfied with this – she found it to be an unacceptable alternative to the Financial Controller role and demonstrated that her original role was not in fact redundant as MS. S continued to perform Ms. M’s original duties and was listed as the company’s Financial Controller on the company website. The complainant researched her position in light of the new role that her employer offered her as an alternative and realised that she was not obliged to accept the offer. The respondent offered Ms. M her original terms and conditions (including rate of pay and hours), however, the role that she was being asked to perform going forward was a clear demotion and a serious reduction in responsibility. She requested to return to her role as Financial Controller. Again it was expressed by the respondent that this role was redundant and he offered her 14 days to decide whether or not to take the new role of ‘Credit Control Manager’. Ms. M said that she was only happy to return to her original role and stated why the new offer was unacceptable in light of the fact that her original role clearly still existed. Mr. W wrote to Ms. M a number of days later rejecting her arguments and adding that, as she had not reported for duty, he considered her to have resigned. 
Vivian Jackson, Equality Officer, found that Ms. M had been subjected to a range of unlawful treatments. Her employer made it impossible for her to proceed wither pre maternity leave role and essentially dismissed her. The Equality Officer ordered that the respondent pay the complainant €80,000.00 in compensation for the discrimination inflicted on her. 
How to Conduct an Effective Employee Communication Survey
Surveying employees is an effective first step in fixing communication barriers in an organisation. Even if there are no obvious problems, communication surveys can help get an organisation to the next level of performance.
Benefits in conducting an employee communication survey and acting on the results include:
• improved employee satisfaction
• lower turnover
• reduced absenteeism
• less political infighting
• greater levels of manager-worker trust
• reduced defect rates
• higher customer satisfaction
A well-run communication survey can give you these benefits. However, a poorly conducted communication survey can have the opposite effect. Surveys badly planned, rolled-out and followed-up can actually increase employee cynicism and resistance to change. They can also increase employee turnover and absenteeism. This can negatively impact customer satisfaction and your bottom line.
Employee Communication Survey Tips
So, what do you need to consider before rolling out your survey? Here are some tips.
Question types
Include in your survey questions that require limited tick-the-box responses, such as Yes/No and Strongly Agree/Agree/Disagree/Strongly Disagree. Including these questions will allow
you to perform quantitative analyses that you can use to compare results between different demographics and to use as a benchmark for future surveys.
However, equally as important is the provision of free form space which affords employees the opportunity to elaborate on the feedback they have given elsewhere on the form and to discuss in detail anything that has not been covered in the other areas of the survey. A good idea is to run Focus Groups with a random sample of respondents after the survey forms have been
collected and analysed. These discussion groups are invaluable in performing a sanity check on your results so far and in teasing out issues that have surfaced in the written survey.
Anonymity
Guarantee absolute anonymity for the people completing the survey and make this clear in the survey instructions. Some employees will either not complete the survey or give sanitised answers if they believe that their identity will be disclosed with their answers and comments.
Sample size
Should you survey the whole organisation/department or a select group? Preferably, survey all employees as this gives everyone a sense of being listened to. If the organisation/department is excessively large or budget is tight, draw a random sample from each of the demographic groups that you will be reporting on.
If your selection is not random, the communication survey results will not be representative and you will lose credibility with your employees. If a demographic group comprises 50 people or less, you will need to survey 100 percent of the people within that group.
Mode of delivery
If the people completing the survey are small in number and at a single location, then hardcopy distribution will not be a problem. As the number of respondents increases and the locations become more dispersed, more consideration will need to be given to electronic distribution. Think about putting the survey on a local intranet or internet web server.
To make filling out the employee survey form easy for people, have it so that the form can be completed online. If this is not possible, either send the form by email or put it on an accessible server from which people can download it. If your survey respondents are not comfortable
with technology, then be wary of online options and provide plenty of employee support if you decide to go down that road.
Inducements and Reminders
Survey participation rates do not tend to be particularly high, typically ten percent or less. You can dramatically improve on this completion rate by conducting some simple follow-up. As you get closer to the communication survey cut-off date (of course, you will have publicised that
date with your survey), send out an e-mail reminder or arrange for someone to call the respondents personally. Consider advertising a raffle for all survey participants - this will increase the participation rate (especially if it is a good prize).
Distribute results
Once the employee feedback results are in and analysed, distribute your findings first to your managers and then to employees. Withholding results from employees will only breed cynicism and distrust and will make getting a satisfactory response rate from your next survey all that more difficult.
Break down your results into meaningful groups, such as by department or by location/site. The reporting groupings need to be small enough that people can identify with the group enough for a meaningful action plan to be developed.
Be prepared for some kickback from defensive managers. Frank employee feedback is both confronting and jarring, especially for those managers not used to it. Use your best facilitation skills to deliver the key messages, or use a professional facilitator to perform this sensitive task.
Follow-up and Rewards
A survey conducted with no plan for action is not only a waste of resources but will leave employees asking why they bothered to give feedback to managers on how they felt. Work with each manager to construct an action plan that they agree with. Remember, it is the manager that will be implementing the communication plan, not you. Get back with each manager three
or six months later to review how they are progressing with their communication plan and report the results to the organisation. As you see communication practices improve across the organisation, make sure that managers get rewarded.
Force Majeure Leave in the Irish Workplace
There are several types of leave that an employee may be entitled to. Some forms of leave are statutory entitlements and some other forms are not. Maternity Leave, for instance, must be given to employees when they are pregnant. Some forms of leave are paid and others are not. This can depend on statutory obligations and on the terms and conditions set out in the Contract of Employment. Annual Leave is a statutory entitlement and it must be paid by the
employer. Sick Leave, however, is not always paid by the employer (this depends on individual company policies).
Force Majeure Leave is less commonly discussed. The purpose of Force Majeure Leave is to provide limited, paid leave to enable an employee to deal with family emergencies resulting from injury or illness of a close family member. Force Majeure Leave applies where the immediate presence of the employee is urgent and indispensable (essential).
A close family member is defined as one of the following:
- A child or adopted child of the employee
- The husband/wife/partner (same or opposite sex) of the employee
- A parent/grandparent of the employee
- A brother/sister of the employee
- A person to whom the employee has a duty of care (where he or she is acting in loco parentis)
- A person in a relationship of domestic dependency with the employee
- Persons of any other class (if any) as may be prescribed
By its nature, an employee will not usually be able to give notice of the need to take Force Majeure Leave. The employee should, however, inform the employer (in writing) of reasons for taking the leave as soon as is reasonable practicable. The employee should provide details regarding the need for the leave and should confirm who the leave was taken in respect of.
Employers are obliged to keep a record of Force Majeure Leave taken by employees.
Employees will be entitled to:
- up to 3 days paid Force Majeure Leave in any consecutive 12 month period; or
- up to 5 days in a 36 consecutive month period.
Absence for part of a day is usually counted as a full day of Force Majeure Leave. Employees are entitled to receive pay for this type of leave. Employers can grant employees more than the number of days outlined above; however, they are not obliged to do so.
Employees are protected against Unfair Dismissal for taking Force Majeure Leave or for proposing to take it.
Death is not covered under Force Majeure Leave – Leave taken when a death occurs falls under Compassionate Leave and this tends to depend on employee contracts as well as custom and practice within the workplace.Christmas Parties – Advice for Employers
With the Christmas season upon us again many employers will arrange a work-related social event (Christmas party) in order to thank employees for their efforts and hard work over the past year.
Despite Christmas parties occurring mostly outside of the work place, responsibility still lies with the employer for the protection and safety of their employees. Each year cases concerning bullying and harassment are brought before the Rights Commissioner and the Equality Tribunal. These incidents can be perpetrated at work-related social events like the Christmas party and the employer is often held liable for such action.
For the protection of the organisation and to avoid any such issues, below is a list of preventative steps which can be taken:
- Re-circulate the company’s Dignity at Work policy, which should include reference to bullying, harassment and sexual harassment in the workplace. This policy should clearly state that work-related social events fall under the terms of this policy.
- Ensure that it is clearly outlined to employees that they may be subject to disciplinary action leading up to and including dismissal should they be found in breach of the company’s Dignity at Work policy at a work-related social event.
- Ensure that employees are aware of the company’s Disciplinary and Grievance procedures.
- Re-circulate the company’s Social Media policy to ensure employees are aware of the rules surrounding publishing photographs online in order to prevent any privacy infringements arising or damage being caused to the company’s reputation.
- If the event is scheduled on an evening where employees are required to work the following day, ensure employees are aware of the company’s Absence policy.
- Brief members of Management on the above policies and ensure that they know how to deal with behaviour that could be deemed inappropriate at the event should it arise.
- Advise Management not to discuss issues relating to salaries, performance or career prospects at the event.
Employers reducing salaries without consent
If a salary reduction is imposed without consultation or employee agreement, an employee now only has three (rather than four) potential legal opportunities to seek redress from his or her employer.
If an employee’s wages are cut his or her first option is to claim Constructive Dismissal under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1997-2007. Constructive Dismissal is the term used when an employee terminates his or her employment based on the conduct of the employer. In this instance, the employee must be able to prove that their position became unsustainable as a direct result of the involuntary reduction in pay.
Secondly, where an employee’s salary is reduced, he or she has the opportunity to bring a trade dispute under the Industrial Relations Acts. The Industrial Relations Acts deal with disputes between employers and workers that are connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms and conditions of or affecting the employment, of any person.
Thirdly, if an employer cuts an employee’s pay, the employee could claim that their contract has been breached. Defending this could prove very costly for the employer. Furthermore, an injunction may be granted to prevent the contract breach/reinstate the original salary.
In the past employees whose wages were cut without prior consent had a fourth option. They had the opportunity to take a case (and were likely to succeed) under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. Claims in relation to a reduction in wages, however, may no longer be successful if taken under this Act as a result of a recent Employment Appeals Tribunal determination. The specific EAT case referenced here is an appeal of a Right’s Commissioner decision in the case of Santry Sports Clinic v 5 employees.
The employees in the aforementioned case were claiming for an 8% reduction in their pay that was imposed between February and March 2010. Santry Sports Clinic stated that the reduction was essential. According to the employer, all employees received letters detailing the 8% reduction in advance and, while only 30% of employees agreed to the reduction via return letters, no one officially objected or stated that they would not accept the pay cut and so it was implemented as planned.
The Employment Appeals Tribunal considered all evidence and representations made at the hearing as well as all other submissions made. The Tribunal noted the High Court decision in the case of Michael McKenzie and others and Ireland and the Attorney General and the Minister for Defence Rec. No. 2009. 5651JR. In paragraph 5.8 of this decision the Judge stated that “the Payment of Wages Act has no application to reductions as distinct from ‘deductions’.” The Tribunal followed the High Court decision on a point of law and, therefore, the appeal was successful and the decision of the Rights Commissioner was entirely overturned in the case of Santry Sports Clinic v 5 employees.
This case brought to light the fact that the Payment of Wages Act 1991 refers to “deductions” as opposed to “reductions” and, as a consequence, employees whose wages are reduced without prior consent are now unlikely to succeed if they opt to take a case against their employer under the Payment of Wages Act 1991.
This is particularly significant for claims that are currently being processed by the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
Employers need to remember that, although this option has essentially been closed off for employees as a result of the above-mentioned High Court decision and the EAT case, they still have several avenues open to them if they wish to take a claim where a reduction of wages has been imposed by the employer without prior consent.