All you need to know about HR!
Supporting Business Owners, Directors and HR Professionals with the latest in HR trends and news.
June 2015
Employee Assistance Program
Employee Assistance Programs, often referred to as EAPs, are programs offered by many employers to employees to assist them in dealing with personal/delicate issues that may hinder their performance in work related activities or negatively affect their overall wellbeing.
EAPs support employees and their family members by providing services such as counselling or guidance in finding a service that will help the employee through a challenging stage or sensitive issue.
EAP professionals provide assistance to people with a broad range of problems – some examples of these are:
- Overwhelming relationship/family issues
- Mental illness
- Alcohol or drug addictions
- Bereavement
- Emotional distress relating to illness, financial and legal concerns etc.
It is important for employers to make employees aware that the EAP is a voluntary service and that the EAP maintains the confidentiality of the individual availing of the service.
Typically the employer absorbs the costs associated with providing an EAP so it is available free of charge for the employee and his/her family members. Some companies have their own EAP and a dedicated team to deliver the relevant support to employees, however, many companies use a third party EAP provider. There is no obligation on employers to deliver such a program to employees, however, there are many benefits linked with the accessibility of an EAP to employees.
The reasons an employer should provide access to an EAP are as follows:
- Reduced turnover
- Improved rates of absenteeism
- Increased levels of productivity
Having support services like this in place gives employees a sense that their happiness and wellbeing is important to the employer – they feel valued in the workplace and morale and loyalty are likely to improve. Employees are more likely to address their issues/problems if doing so is made easy and does not create an additional expense for them.
To ensure you comply with all employment legislation and to make sure your human resources issues are tackled efficiently contact The HR Company.
Internet Usage Policy at Work – What is Appropriate in the Office?
Whether it is through office computers, laptops or mobile devices, a lot of work environments have easy access to resources like the Internet these days. It is important for employers to lay down ground rules when it comes to the use of the Internet at work. Internet access is typically provided by employers for the purpose of assisting employees with their work related activities.
Employers should instruct employees not to use the Internet for non-work related undertakings – except in extraordinary circumstances or on the specific instruction of the manager.
An employer should reserve the right to restrict and monitor the use of Internet resources.
If observing inward and/or outward Internet traffic it is important to make employees aware of this and to let them know that the sites they visit will be recorded by management and may be used at the discretion of The Company. Employers should reserve the right to monitor by means of electronic scanning, for instance, for source and destination addresses and should scrutinise the distribution of any information through the Internet.
Here are some rules that employers should put in place in the employee handbook:
DO- Use the Internet only as needed for work or limited personal use when essential
- Understand that The Company may be liable for what the employee does from The Company network - whether The Company is aware or not
- Help The Company to maintain compliance with software licensing – if in doubt, the employee should ask the management team
- Download software, games or screensavers to your computer or to The Company network
- Distribute Company Logins or Passwords to those who are not authorised to use them
- Download video files such as MPEG files unless directly related to work assigned to you
- Engage in any form of online gambling or betting
- Use passwords or encryption keys unknown to Management
- Obtain malicious access to Internet sites by cracking or hacking
- Retrieve material from the Internet using Company resources which:
- is racist, sexist or which may otherwise cause offence or be construed as harassment
- infringes someone else’s legal rights, including copyright, patent or trademark rights of any other person or organisation
- is defamatory or attacks or denigrates any person, group or organisation
- would cause offence on the grounds of race, colour, religion, political beliefs, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, gender, age, disability, nationality, marital status, membership of the traveller community or intending to, undergoing or having undergone treatment to change sex, or
- is otherwise unlawful or could constitute a criminal offence or which could damage the reputation of The Company
In order to protect The Company employers should establish policies regarding employees’ personal websites – for instance:
While an employee is entitled to create and operate a personal or commercial website employers generally prevent employees from creating one that would violate Company policies or that would compete with The Company - The employee should notify The Company of his or her external commercial activities and the existence of resources such as a personal website and these should be approved by management to ensure there is no conflict.
Employers should restrict the use of Company resources/property in the development or operation of a personal website. A policy should be put in place to prevent work on a personal website being carried out on The Company premises or on Company time as the employee is expected to devote their full working time and loyalty to The Company.
For assistance in creating contracts of employment or employee handbooks containing policies and procedures about internet use or to help eliminate problems in the workplace while ensuring you are compliant with all employment legislation visit The HR Company and subscribe to have 24/7 access to your own personal expert HR department.
Registered Employment Agreements (REAs)
For decades the pay rates and conditions of hundreds of thousands of workers across several sectors, like electrical contracting and construction, in Ireland have been governed by Registered Employment Agreements (REAs).
REAs are legally binding agreements that govern the pay rates and other conditions of employment for all employees in a given sector.
A Supreme Court ruling yesterday, Thursday 9th May 2013, found the existence of such agreements to be invalid. The ruling outlined that a section of the Industrial Relations Act of 1946 (the Act that provided for the REAs) was incompatible with the Irish Constitution on the grounds that the agreements were not created by the Oireachtas (which has exclusive responsibility for creating laws in this country) but instead by the Labour Court - a Court that does not have the power to enforce the conditions contained within the REAs.
While this ruling came about as a result of an appeal brought by the National Electrical Contractors of Ireland (NECI) – the ruling will have massive implications for all sectors governed by REAs.
The electrical contractors who challenged the REA by which they were bound did so because they said that the REA was created by parties that did not represent the electrical industry as a whole. They felt that because they were not a party to the REA they should not be bound by it – they felt as though the rates of pay dictated by the REA were far in excess of what they could afford and that, for those reasons accompanied by the economic downturn, they were not competitive in tendering for projects. The group are said to be delighted with the five judge Supreme Court decision and say that they will be better able to secure existing jobs.
The NECI spoke out to reassure concerned workers that the problem was not so much that they had an issue with having some sort of wage agreement in place but that they felt they had the right to be involved in a decision making process if they are to be bound by the results of such a process. Any future agreement needs to consider and represent the requirements of both big and small employers alike and not just a subset of the contractors in the sector.
The NECI moved to reassure employees that their intention is not to reduce pay arrangements to the National Minimum Wage level (discussed below).
The Technical Engineering and Electrical Union (TEEU) stated that the ruling does not affect existing pay rates and conditions as they are set out in contracts of employment and the terms of this cannot be altered without consultation and negotiation.
Eamon Devoy, General Secretary and Treasurer of the TEEU said: “There are established Rates of Pay and Conditions of Employment in the Construction and Electrical Contracting Industry and any employer who attempts to undermine these standards will be met with the wrath of the TEEU who will use all means at its disposal to protect our members in the industry. It is worth noting that with the loss of registration the requirement for workers and their unions to go through national disputes resolution procedures was also extinguished and should the employers attempt to take advantage of vulnerable workers we could be in for a rocky road ahead”.
The NECI asked “that the inevitable scaremongering by the TEEU, who will claim that the Industry will descend into chaos, be ignored”.
The National Minimum Wage – Ireland
Under the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 experienced adult employees (those who have been in any employment in any two years from the date of first employment over the age of 18) are entitled to a minimum rate of pay. Lesser rates are applicable for other categories of employees.
For instance, an employee under the age of 18 is entitled to €6.06 per hour or 70% of the National Minimum Wage. An employer can, of course, pay more than what they are required to pay.
The employee would be entitled to 80% and then 90% of the minimum wage in the first two years of employment over the age of 18.
It is important to note that the referenced two years of employment does not have to have been with the same employer nor does it have to have been in Ireland – Any employment carried out from the age of 18 is reckonable for the purposes of the minimum wage entitlement.
If you employed somebody on the National Minimum Wage (currently €8.65), that specific rate is their pay rate. The National Minimum Wage decreased by €1 to €7.65 for a short period in February 2011 but the previous rate of €8.65 was reintroduced on 1st July 2011.
If the National Minimum Wage was to be reduced again in the future this does not mean employers can simply drop the employee down to the new rate - Employees are entitled to remain on the wage at which you employed them unless you negotiate a new deal with them. It would, however, be acceptable to employ new employees at the new rate.
The text of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 and related Statutory Instruments can also be accessed on the website of the Office of the Attorney General at http://www.attorneygeneral.ie/.
For support and advice on all of your human resources issues contact The HR Company and avail of a complimentary Employment Law consultation.
Labour Court’s Recommendation in Workers v Timber Company Case
The Workers at a timber company brought a case against their Employer to the Labour Court and the Recommendation was very interesting. The Workers, who were represented by Services Industrial Professional Technical Union(SIPTU), wanted a 5% pay increase. However, the Company didn’t feel as though it should be paying such an increase. The National Wage Agreement ceased in 2008 and the Workers in the Company have not received a pay increase since then. The dispute between the Employees and the Company could not be resolved at local level and became the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission (LRC). Agreement was not reached here and so, in November 2013, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court. In March of this year a Labour Court Hearing took place. The Union argued that the Workers at the timber company have had to endure the austerity measures introduced in successive budgets over the last number of years. They have also experienced a significant increase in taxation which, combined with the difficult budgets, has resulted in a reduction in the take home pay for the Workers. SIPTU also argued that the increase sought was a modest one and that it would not adversely impact the Company. The Company, on the other hand, argued that it was forced to take certain steps to remain viable and maintain levels of employment in the very competitive recent market conditions. The timber firm also stated that it had always met its commitments under the National Wage Agreements; however, any increase in pay at this stage would inevitably challenge the security of employment within the Company. Mr. Hayes (Chairman), Mr. Murphy (Employer Member) and Mr. Shanahan (Worker Member) considered the Employee and Company arguments and made a decision based on all of the submissions.
In the end, the Court met in the middle and Recommended that the Company increase the pay of the workers concerned by 2% for twelve months, effective 1st August 2014.
Dealing with Lateness in Work – What Should You Do as an Employer?
Employers should include clear codes of practice regarding tardiness in the workplace in the employee handbook and this should be given to each employee on commencement of their employment.
Timekeeping is very important, particularly when it comes to punctuality and reliability in work related activities.
The employee’s working hours should be specified prior to the start of the employment relationship and he or she should ensure to be ready to start work (not just arrive) at the appointed time.
Employers should attach great importance to consistent punctuality as clients and other key stakeholders rely on the availability of the employees at particular times.
If an employee is going to be late for work he or she should contact their manager immediately giving the reason and their approximate time of arrival. Notification should be made personally. Notification by text message or email is not professional and should be discouraged.
Employers should not hesitate to take disciplinary action against those that are late to work – in fact, rather than ignore it or “let it go”, the best thing to do is to raise the topic with the employee to make them conscious that you are aware of the punctuality issues and to show your dissatisfaction with the behaviour – this will usually nip it in the bud before it becomes a habit that is difficult to shake.
One way to deal with lateness is to withhold payment for the period that the employee was not present and available to work. A disciplinary procedure can also be initiated, up to and including dismissal, if there is constant lateness or non-attendance as this is a serious offense that disturbs other colleagues, management and clients.
If the tardiness is recurring employers should reach out to the employee, particularly if this behaviour is out of character. There may be an issue that the employer should be made aware of. If the employee is experiencing personal problems he or she should be encouraged to utilise the services of the employee assistance program, should this be available in the company.
If there is a need to adjust the required hours of work of an employee due to changing market and business requirements as much notice as possible should be given to the employee.
For guidance on the best approach to grievance issues visit connect with The HR Company.
The HR Company provides an abundance of human resources expertise at a very affordable price and will manage all work associated with reducing working hours/redundancy steps and everything in between.
The HR Company interprets all employment legislation and delivers all disciplinary recommendations - even writing the disciplinary letters for you. (These will be customised; no samples or templates).
Did you know that NERA inspectors are currently carrying out investigations to ensure that businesses are compliant with employment legislation and that labour inspectorates have the right to request access to employment records such as, Hours of Work, Public Holiday Benefits, Annual Leave, Wage Sheets and Legally Compliant Contracts?
The HR Company ensures companies are NERA compliant to avoid fines and damaging repercussions.
The experienced HR professionals will issue all customised contracts of employment for your employees and will prepare an employee handbook specific to your company.
Your dedicated account manager will manage any conflict in the organisation including bullying & harassment in the workplace as well as giving recommendations in response to performance issues.
The HR Company will keep you up to date with all changes in employment legislation.
Uniforms, General Workwear and Dress Code
Employees in many companies are required by management to wear a uniform or expressed work attire while carrying out their work responsibilities or while present in the workplace. There are many reasons why employees are obliged to wear a uniform -
- A uniform is important in some industries from a Health and Safety perspective
- Wearing a uniform can create a sense of pride/comfort/unity among employees
- Uniforms maintain the company’s corporate image and are a branding opportunity
- Uniforms assist in the efficient identification of employees which is helpful to customers, other employees, suppliers and stakeholders in general.
The “uniform” requirements may be a simple guide – for instance “All employees must wear black while carrying out their duties” or employees may simply have a name tag attached to their own clothing.
In many workplaces a specific uniform is not mandatory; however, compliance with the company’s dress code may be compulsory and will be enforced by the employer or management.
Employees will often come into contact with clients and suppliers and consequently it is in the best interest of the company that they present themselves in a professional manner with regards to appearance and standards of dress. It is essential that overall hygiene and grooming are maintained.
Where uniforms are not provided or required, employees should wear clothes appropriate to the job responsibilities - Naturally a mechanic will wear a different form of clothing than an office worker.
Where possible work attire should be kept clean and tidy at all times.
Some employers will restrict employees in terms of what jewellery is allowed as well as items like tattoos – If a company has guidelines in relation to matters such as work attire the relevant policies should be included in the employee handbook and this should be made available to all employees on the commencement of their employment.
Some employers will provide uniforms for employees when they commence employment. In some instances the cost of the uniform will be deducted from the employees pay. Rules in terms of the maintenance of the uniform vary from company to company.
Some companies will request that employees launder their own uniforms at their own expense or at the expense of the company. Medical professionals, for instance, must always have sanitized work attire.
It is important that employers do not request that their employees wear inappropriate uniforms or uniforms that are not comfortable or practical for the work that is being completed.
Suitable footwear and clothing that is warm enough for the working conditions is essential.
According to health and safety guidelines an employer must communicate any risks to the employee that would require them to wear protective equipment. The employer should provide the relevant protective equipment such as protective hard hats, metal topped shoes, eyewear and gloves etc. Where necessary the employer should also provide training on how to use the protective gear.
It is the duty of the employee to take reasonable care for his/her own safety and to use any protective equipment supplied. Radiologists should wear lead coated aprons, for instance, to avoid unnecessary amounts of radiation penetrating their bodies during x-rays.
The protective equipment should be provided free of charge to employees if it is intended for use at the workplace only. Where possible, the employee should be provided with their own personal equipment rather than having to share this with other employees.
For assistance in creating contracts of employment or employee handbooks containing policies and procedures about dress code/uniforms and much more and to ensure you are compliant with all employment legislation visit The HR Company and subscribe to have 24/7 access to your own personal expert HR department.
An Employer’s Guide to Setting a Probationary Period
Employment references for prospective employees should always be thoroughly vetted – however, for various reasons, they may not always give a true and present reflection of the candidate or they may reflect what the employee’s capabilities were at a different time which may not necessarily match their current skills. For this reason it is advisable for employers to employ new members based on multiple evaluations to protect themselves and to ensure not to waste any time or resources on someone who isn’t adequately equipped for the role.
An applicant’s Curriculum Vitae and the resulting interview can tell an employer a lot about the potential new employee - it is not uncommon, however, to ask shortlisted candidates to perform competency-based assessments or aptitude tests so that the employer can acquire a full picture of the candidate and determine whether or not he or she is the right fit for the vacancy. In certain instances it is advisable for employers to hire new members on a probationary period of 3 or 6 months or something along those lines – this is becoming more and more prevalent.
This probationary period does not prejudice the company’s right to dismiss in accordance with the notice provisions contained in the employee’s individual statement of main terms of employment, or without notice for reasons of gross misconduct, should this be necessary.
This period should be used by the employer to fully assess the employee’s work performance and suitability and if the work performance is not up to the required standard or the employee is considered to be unsuitable the employer should either take swift remedial action or terminate the employment, without recourse to the disciplinary procedure.
At the end of the probationary period the employee should again be reassessed. If he or she has not reached the required standard the employer should, at their discretion, either extend the probationary period in order that remedial action can be taken or terminate the contract of employment.
The probationary period should not in any case exceed eleven months in total. The employee should receive notice of the company’s intention to extend the probationary period before or at the end of the initial 6 month probationary period.
A clause should allow that any continuous period of absence of four weeks or more would suspend the probationary period until the employee’s return to work.
To avoid any risk of discrimination a policy, like the probationary period outlined above, should be fair and consistent and should apply to all new employees throughout the company. In disciplinary proceedings, when dealing with employees on probationary periods, progressive steps can be skipped but it is a common misconception that fair procedures and natural justice need not be adhered to during the probationary period.
The Unfair Dismissals Acts 1997-2007 will not apply to the dismissal of an employee during a period at the beginning of employment when he/she is on probation or undergoing training provided that:
- the contract of employment is in writing
- the duration of probation or training is one year or less and is specified in the contract
It is important to bear in mind that this exclusion from the Acts will not apply if the dismissal results from trade union membership or activity, pregnancy related matters, or entitlements under the maternity protection, parental leave, adoptive leave and carer's leave legislation.
For assistance in creating contracts of employment or employee handbooks containing policies and procedures and to ensure you are compliant with all employment legislation visit The HR Company and subscribe to have 24/7 access to your own personal HR department - all your HR needs could be at your finger tips.
April 2015
June 2014
ECJ Obesity Case Ruling
Last Thursday, 12th June, the European Court of Justice heard a landmark discrimination case that was brought by Karsten Kaltoft of Denmark. Mr. Kaltoft alleges that he was discriminated against when he was dismissed by his employer because of his weight (approximately 25 stone). The case is the first of its kind to be referred to the EU and could have extensive consequences.
The Danish man was employed by his local authority – Billund local authority - as a child-minder. Kaltoft claims that his weight did not affect his ability to perform his child-minding duties; however, the Court heard that he was unable to do tasks like tying a child’s shoe laces without a colleague’s help.
The question that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) must consider is whether Mr Kaltoft’s obesity falls within the classification of a “disability” under EU law.
The Court’s decision, which is expected in a few weeks, will alter the EU’s Directive on Employment Equality which outlaws discrimination on disability grounds.
The Court’s decision will be binding across all EU member states, including Ireland.
If Kaltoft is successful in his arguments, obesity will be redefined so as to be categorised as a disability.
The USA has already seen several individual workers receive compensation from their former employers as a result of being dismissed due to their obese status.
Until now, the UK courts have rejected obesity as a disability in its own right; however, if the ECJ finds that Mr. Kaltoft was, in fact, unfairly dismissed, employers throughout Europe will be bound by the ECJ ruling and will be forced to treat obesity as a disability going forward. Such a decision would, in future, force employers to make ‘reasonable’ adjustments - for instance, they may have to provide preferential access to parking (as is currently the case for disabled drivers). The ECJ ruling could also restrict employers from rejecting job candidates because of their weight.
According to a 2011 Oireachtas Library & Research Service report, ‘Obesity – a growing problem’, a staggering 61% of adults in Ireland are overweight or obese.
Body Mass Index (BMI) is a number calculated based on a person’s weight and height. Anyone with a BMI of 30 or more is classed as clinically obese.
Employers must pay attention to the ECJ decision in the Kaltoft obesity case as it may establish a precedent across all EU member states which could have major implications for employers.
April 2014
European Court of Justice Declares Data Retention Directive Invalid
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) declared the Data Retention Directive invalid yesterday, 8th April, 2014, in response to a case brought by Digital Rights Ireland.
In 2006, Digital Rights Ireland initiated Court proceedings against the Irish State. The case brought the legality of the country’s data-retention legislation into question. The current data-retention legislation requires phone companies and internet service providers to store data about customer locations, e-mails, phone calls and text messages for a period not less than 6, and up to a maximum of 24, months.
In 2012, the High Court in Ireland referred the Digital Rights Ireland case to the European Court of Justice and, in 2013, the advisory legal opinion of Pedro Cruz Villalón, Advocate General, was that the Directive should be overturned. The Advocate General stated that the Directive was unlawful and not compatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
In line with the Advocate General’s advisory legal opinion of 2013, the ECJ yesterday announced that the Directive, which “entails a wide-ranging and particularly serious interference with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data”, was invalid.
