All you need to know about HR!
Supporting Business Owners, Directors and HR Professionals with the latest in HR trends and news.
June 2015
Employment Appeals Tribunal Awards €8,500 to Former Employee
Unfair Selection for Redundancy Claim succeeds leading the Employment Appeals Tribunal to award €8,500 in compensation. After hearing statements from the former employee (the claimant) and the respondent (a car dealership), the Tribunal was satisfied that a redundancy situation existed, however, the Tribunal concluded that the process was defective and, therefore, determined that the claimant was entitled to a significant award.
The respondent failed to consult the claimant about his redundancy and did not appear to properly consider alternatives before finalising the decision to make the employee redundant – For instance, the employee could have suggested that he work a shorter working week/reduced hours or that he take a reduction in pay. The respondent is obliged to consider these suggestions over a period of consultation, however, the claimant was not afforded this entitlement and was only told the reasons behind the decision to select him for redundancy after asking for these.
The Tribunal found that the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 was justified which is why the claimant walked away with €8,500. This sum was in addition to the redundancy lump sum that he had received when the redundancy first occurred.
Details of this case can be found on the Workplace Relations Website (Case No. UD450/2012) - http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2013/November/UD450_2012.html
This case stresses the importance of following the approved procedures when it comes to redundancy. Not only do you have to prove that a redundancy is required in order to keep the business viable – you must also be able to justify why you made one employee redundant over another. The employer must be able to show that the redundancy process was not flawed. Employers should use a Selection Matrix so he or she cannot be accused of subjectivity (which is what the employee claimed in the above-mentioned case). The employer is obliged to invite the employee to a meeting making them aware that it concerns redundancy. Employers are obliged to give the employee notice of the redundancy and the reasons why the redundancy scenario came about along with why they were selected. 
The employer should have asked the employee in question if they could think of any alternatives to the redundancy and the employer should have allowed for a period of consultation of at least three days before making their final decision. It is also important to allow employees to be accompanied to meetings like this.
Constructive Dismissal leads to €9,000 Award for Former Employee
Constructive Dismissal is the term used when an Employee terminates his or her employment based on the conduct of the Employer. Unlike in an Unfair Dismissals case where the dismissal is deemed to be unfair unless proven otherwise and justified by the Employer - in Constructive Dismissal instances the onus is on the Employee to prove that their resignation was based on poor Employer conduct.
If it is found that the Employee has been Unfairly or Constructively Dismissed then he or she could either be awarded compensation for the loss of earnings suffered as a result of the termination of employment or could be placed back in their original role. Reinstatement is not common practice (particularly in Constructive Dismissal cases) due to the expected tension/ strained relationship between the Employer and the former Employee and due to the amount of time that is likely to have lapsed between the termination of the employment contract and the resolution of the case. The Employee has often entered in to a new employment contract elsewhere.
It is important for Employers to be aware of everything that occurs in their workplace as even other Employees’ behaviour that goes unchecked by the Employer could contribute to a Constructive Dismissal case. These can be extremely costly.
Here is an example of a case where the Employee (the Claimant) was awarded €9,000 after the Employment Appeals Tribunal found that he had been Constructively Dismissed.
The Claimant in this case started working for the Respondent in 2007. There were no issues until late 2010 when a Technician was promoted to Technical Manager. This immediately created a hostile environment and relationships became strained. The Claimant experienced problematic scenarios in the workplace as a result of the Technical Manager’s temper on numerous occasions.
The final occurrence led to the termination of employment for the Claimant. On the Claimant’s final day working for the Respondent the Technical Manager, a physically intimidating individual, entered the shop where the Claimant and his colleague were working. The Technical Manager lifted the Claimant up from his chair by his arm and proceeded to shout at him. The Claimant, who was frightened, attempted to avoid confrontation and turned away. The Technical Manager again grabbed the Claimant, this time by his shoulder, and spun him around while demanding that he not complain. The Claimant said that he didn’t complain, he just answered questions. The Claimant was pulled closer and then told to leave by the Technical Manager.
The Claimant did as he was told but the Technical Manager proceeded to follow him, grabbing him by the neck. At this stage the Claimant was in a state of shock and told the Technical Manager that he was simply working his way through college. The Claimant’s shirt was torn, there were marks on his neck and his hand was bruised after the incident.
After the event, the Claimant called a Senior Manager and told him what had happened. The Claimant returned his keys to the shop and arranged to collect his jacket from his colleague. A series of meetings with the shop Manager and other Senior Managers were arranged. The Claimant was offered a transfer to another shop, however, this other shop was located far
from the Claimant’s home and, therefore, was not a suitable alternative – he could not accept this transfer proposal.
As a result of the meetings the Claimant was given a written warning, however, as no arrangements were made for him to return to a safe workplace he had no option but to resign.
The Claimant established loss for the Tribunal and it was determined that the Claimant was Constructively Dismissed. The Respondent failed in its responsibility to the Claimant by not responding adequately.
Under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007, the Claimant was awarded €9,000 as compensation for being Constructively Dismissed.
The appeal was heard at Dublin on 14th October 2013. Case Number: UD669/2012.
Probationary Periods in the Irish Workplace
Employment references for prospective employees can be great indicators of employee skills or characteristics and they 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 and this may not necessarily match their current skills. References can also depict suitability for a role that is dissimilar to the one being filled. For this reason it is advisable for employers to engage new members based on multiple evaluations to protect themselves and to ensure not to waste any time or resources on someone who is not adequately equipped for the role.
An applicant’s cover letter and curriculum vitae, as well as the resulting interview(s), 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’s abilities and determine whether or not he or she is the right fit for the vacancy. It is customary for employers to hire new members on a probationary period of 6 months or a term not dissimilar to this.
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 establish suitability. 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, policies (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 (including annual leave) 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.
Arm Your Company with the Best Human Resources Support
Since 2001 The HR Company, B2E Ltd. has been successfully providing a cost-effective HR and advice support service(s) for small to medium sized businesses (SMEs) across Ireland. The HR Company also assists several large corporations and multinationals with their HR operations. With so many pieces of employment legislation in place in Ireland it is a challenge for companies to ensure that they are fully compliant on all counts. The HR Company is an Irish-owned company headed up by Philip Carney, former head of HR for Microsoft’s European Operations Centre, and Angela O’Grady, former Staffing and Recruiting Manager. A team of 20 HR specialists provide peace of mind for Employers by guiding them on all aspects of Irish Employment Law.
The HR Company provides a very affordable 24/7 protection service to those who wish to offload the burdens and risk associated with HR activities. Whether it relates
to disciplinary procedures, annual leave, redundancy or anything in between; a dedicated account manager is at the end of a phone to guide Employers and help insulate companies whenever a query about best practices in HR arises.
Not only does The HR Company provide bespoke employment documentation to ensure companies pass a National Employment Rights Authority (NERA) inspection, tailored disciplinary letters and any other relevant material are prepared by dedicated account managers to ease the load on the Employer. The HR Companyacts as the eyes and ears of the Employer on all HR related issues – protecting companies by keeping them informed on any relevant legislation updates.
In this era of increased employee litigation employees know their rights – companies should shield themselves against the risk of a costly dispute by arming themselves with the best on-call
support.
Average Award in Unfair Dismissal Cases on the Rise
According to the Employment Appeals Tribunal Annual Report 2011 the number of cases annually referred to the Tribunal increased three fold during the Irish economic recession (to a high of 9,458 cases in 2009).
The average number of annual referrals before the recession had plateaued at approximately 3,500.
Statistics for Unfair Dismissals cases:
The average compensation awarded by the Tribunal in Unfair Dismissal cases has risen dramatically in recent years.
For the year ended 31st December 2009 the average compensation in Unfair Dismissals cases was €11,476. In 2010 it was €16,064.05 and in 2011 it was €18,047.85.
This is a trend that employers really need to pay attention to as large sums of money like this can seriously damage a company.
It is crucial to stay up-to-date with employment legislation and to follow appropriate procedures when dealing with employee matters.
How to avoid an unfair dismissal claim when making someone redundant
Redundancy is a minefield if you take chances. You must remember that employees now know their rights better than ever before. They have lived through a time when friends, family and work colleagues have been laid off - there is also a lot of information readily available for them online.
Employees have picked up a great deal of information about their rights. We say to Employers "your employees know their rights - do you?" Some businesses are now facing into a second phase of redundancies. In that instance, you can be guaranteed that staff know their entitlements even better than they did for the first phase. If you don't follow process, or if you make a false move, it could cost you - you could quite easily end up in the Labour Courts with an Unfair Dismissal case on your hands.
Unfair Dismissal cases are very common these days and they are very difficult for employers to win as the onus is on the employer to prove that he or she made the correct choices when letting someone go. Proving that a redundancy, for instance, was necessary is essential - making the position, not the person, redundant is crucial - an employer cannot make an employee redundant and then hire a new staff member to carry out the same tasks the following week. Commissioners will scrutinize every detail and decision and will want to see that the employer has dotted every "I" and crossed every "T".
Employers have a 50/50 chance of leaving Labour Court hearings with a large figure to pay out - it is important to remember that a huge number of cases are also settled prior to court proceedings so the odds are heavily stacked against the employer coming away from the Court with no fine on their hands.
Without a doubt redundancies can be required to keep a business viable. Employers need to ensure that they make their decisions based on what's best for the business - not because they want to get rid of Danny the storeman who you feel hasn't done a tap for years. Before making people redundant, look at the business overall and see what areas are suffering a downturn, what areas are picking up, and how best you should react to changed circumstances.
A Selection Matrix will help to clarify your thoughts and take the personalities out of the decision - and also ensure that no-one can accuse you of using redundancy simply to remove people you don't like from your company. As a business owner or manager, you are entitled to make decisions that make business sense. So establish the logic of any decision before you make it.
Searching Employee Belongings Appropriately
Many employers have experienced theft by an employee in the workplace and, consequently, need to put certain measures in place in order to protect the profits of the company. It is the policy of some companies to search employees’ personal belongings when they are leaving the work premises. Employers can also reserve the right to search employee lockers and vehicles if this is agreed with the employee in advance.
If the employer wishes to have the option to carry out personal searches then it is crucial that all details surrounding these searches are clearly communicated to the employees in the contract of employment. Employees sign this contract and by doing so agree to the policies and procedures contained therein.
If an employer reserves the right to search an employee’s belongings then he or she must do so in a dignified manner – giving the employee appropriate levels of privacy. There are several significant procedures to observe when performing a personal search. The individual carrying out the search should be in a management position and, in the interest of clarity; the employees should be made aware in advance who it will be.
The location of the search is also something that should be considered very carefully – it is important to maintain consistency and to carry out searches in an area that offers privacy to the employee involved. Employees should be notified of the location of the search and, ideally, it should be out of the view of customers and other employees. The shop floor is not appropriate search setting – the canteen is not suitable either.
Ideally the area should be covered by CCTV in order to prevent a “he said she said” situation from arising. If this is not possible then a witness should be present so that this scenario is avoided. Either way discretion is of cardinal importance.
As is procedure with airline security screening a male should search a male and a female should search a female, although, as the searches
should not involve body contact this is less of a priority. It is essential
that the employee is asked to open his or her bag, for instance, and that the person performing the search doesn’t breach privacy by putting their hands into the employee’s bag or on the employee’s person.
Employees should be asked politely to remove any suspicious items from their bag for further inspection – the item/items should be placed on a clear surface in order to ensure that there is no confusion over what was actually in the bag. The searching employee (management/security where possible) should never assume that an item has not been paid for. If the item in question was from the store then the employee should be asked to produce a
receipt for same.
Further action can be taken if the employee cannot furnish proof of purchase. When an employee purchases an item in the store during the working day it is good practice for companies to put in place a policy where the bag is sealed and the receipt is attached to the bag. This removes any ambiguity.
Some companies will carry out spot checks on employee belongings rather than checking them on a daily basis – it is vital to be fair and to ensure that the same employees are not targeted all the time.
Not following appropriate procedures can lead to employees being awarded large sums of money.
Dignity at Work – Workplace Racism at an Alarming Level
Employers - Did you know that you can be held accountable for bullying or harassment in the workplace?
……..Not being aware of it does not get you off the hook!
Bullying in the workplace is any recurring inappropriate conduct that undermines a person’s right to dignity at work. Bullying can be carried out by one person or by several people - it is aimed at an individual or a group where the objective is to make them feel inferior or victimised. Bullying can come in the form of a verbal or physical assault and can also take place over the internet – this is known as cyber bullying and can be performed via many methods - Mobile phones, social networking sites, emails and texts are all common vehicles for cyber bullying.
Cyber bullying is becoming more and more prevalent in society.
Keep in mind that harassment based on civil status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, race, nationality or ethnic origin, disability or membership of the Traveller community is considered discrimination.
Harassment in the workplace is prohibited under the terms of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2007. The Act of harassment - whether direct or indirect, intentional or unintentional - is unacceptable and should not be tolerated by any company. Any allegations should be dealt with seriously, promptly and confidentially with a thorough and immediate investigation. Any acts of harassment should be subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. Any victimisation of an employee for reporting an incident, or assisting with an investigation of alleged harassment and/or bullying is a breach of equality legislation and should also be subject to disciplinary action.
Bullying or harassment isn’t always obvious – in fact it can come in many shapes and forms – some examples are:
•Social exclusion or isolation
•Damaging someone’s reputation through gossip or rumour
•Any form of intimidation
•Aggressive or obscene language or behaviour
•Repeated requests for unreasonable tasks to be carried out
Employers Beware:
Under current Irish employment legislation (The Employment Equality Acts 1998-2011) companies are accountable when it comes to bullying and harassment in the workplace or workplace disputes. It is vital for employers to be mindful of the legislation as companies are answerable for the actions of employees, suppliers and customers even in cases where the company is not aware that bullying or harassment is taking place.
To defend itself a company must illustrate how it did everything reasonably practicable to prevent bullying and / or harassment from taking place in the workplace. The company must also show that when an instance of bullying or harassment occurred the company took immediate, fair and decisive action.
There is a huge risk of exposure if companies do not adhere to the strict Regulations. Those found in violation of the Act may be liable for fines and in severe circumstances imprisonment on summary conviction. Companies can also end up paying out large sums in compensation.
Bullying creates a very hostile work environment and can negatively affect employee performance – It can lead to disengagement and low levels of morale. It can also cause a company to lose key members of staff. Bullying can affect both the safety and the health of employees – this violates the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005.
It is abundantly clear that it is in the best interest of all stakeholders to prevent bullying or harassment of any form in the workplace.
In order to avoid bullying and harassment an employer should include harassment-related policies and procedures in the Employee Handbook – A Dignity at Work Policy should be communicated clearly to employees. This will clarify what is expected of employees and what the protocol/repercussions are if bullying/harassment does occur.
Last week the Immigrant Council of Ireland (ICI) brought our attention to a shocking statistic – The ICI revealed that the number of racist incidents reported in Ireland over the last 12 months had jumped to a staggering figure – They dealt with 120 individual racism cases in the past
year. 52 of these instances were reported in June/July of 2013 alone marking a huge increase when compared to the same period in 2012 when just 3 incidents were reported.
The racism reported related to alleged discrimination, written harassment, verbal harassment and physical violence.
The most commonly reported setting for racism was the workplace – where a massive 20% of reported incidents occurred.
Employers need to be vigilant and need to make more of an effort to consciously crack down on this type of activity.
Labour Court Ends Zero-Hours Contracts For HSE Home Helps
The Labour Court has issued a recommendation giving improved terms and conditions to Home Help workers employed by the Health Service Executive (HSE).
The recommendation, which is binding under the terms of the Haddington Road Agreement, was issued on 18th September, 2013, and will affect the employment terms and conditions of approximately 10,000 workers. It is important to note that this agreement only applies to Home Helps who are employed by the HSE. Individuals employed by private companies or not-for-profit providers are not covered by this Labour Court recommendation.
Services Industrial Professional and Technical Union (SIPTU) has been campaigning since 2009 in a bid to secure adequate contracts and security of earnings for its members. The Union has welcomed the Labour Court decision which brings an end to the extensive system of zero-hour contracts. Paul Bell, SIPTU Health Division Organiser, stated that the agreement put the terms and conditions of Home Helps on a “firm and binding platform for the first time since the community service was established thirty years ago”.
A Zero-hours contract is a type of employment where an employee must be available for work but does not have specified or guaranteed hours or a formal roster. This can cause challenging circumstances for employees where the hours of work as well as earnings are unpredictable.
This Labour Court agreement provides for the issuing of annualised contracts guaranteeing a minimum of seven to 10 hours of work per week for each Home Help. Caroline Jenkinson, Labour Court Deputy Chairman, explained that “the number of hours to be allocated to each person will be based on 80 per cent of their actual hours worked in the six-month reference period between October 1st, 2011, and March 31st, 2012, with a minimum guarantee of seven hours”.
In addition to welcoming the removal of the zero-hours system Mr. Bell of SIPTU applauded a HSE effort to reorganise and manage the Home Help hours on a county by county basis.
Those who choose not to work under the annualised hour scheme may be entitled to receive compensation of between €2,000 and €3,000 under an exit deal.
Drugs and Alcohol Free Workplace
So far as is reasonably possible, employers are legally obliged to ensure the safety and welfare at work of all employees. Likewise, employees have a responsibility to themselves and to their colleagues. The use of alcohol and/or unauthorised drugs may disturb the safe and efficient running of a business. It can hinder the health and safety of employees within the organisation as well as the customers and other stakeholders.
-
The use of drugs or alcohol by an employee can lead to performance/productivity issues. It can make concentration very difficult for the person in question. Work related tasks can take more time and the number of mistakes can often increase, potentially costing the Company, individual concerned and other employees dearly.
-
Another common consequence of alcohol or drug use is the loss of faculties. This may lead to an inability to properly assess danger which can, in turn, bring about higher accident levels when driving to or from work, or being more prone to having an accident or causing an accident when at work.
-
Absence from work is another likely outcome when using alcohol or drugs in an excessive or irresponsible manner. Other related lapses such as lateness and disproportionate levels of sickness, etc. are also common.
Companies should operate a ‘zero tolerance’ policy when it comes to drugs and alcohol and
employees should not be permitted to work while under the influence of drugs or alcohol under any circumstances. Employees must adhere to all medically prescribed drug instructions and if the medication is likely to cause any side effects that could impair the employee’s levels of concentration or ability to carry out his or her work then he or she should communicate this to Management.
If an employee’s performance or attendance at work is affected as a result of alcohol or drugs, or the employer believes the employee has been involved in any drug related action/offence, disciplinary action may be required. Dismissal may be warranted in severe circumstances.
It should be clearly communicated to employees that anyone involved in the unlawful possession, use, sale or manufacture of controlled substances or illicit drugs etc. on Company premises, in Company vehicles/work sites or during working time will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. They should also be referred for prosecution.
Companies should also include a drug and alcohol testing policy in their employee handbook to improve their rights in these situations.
Smoking regulations for employees:
In line with statutory provisions companies are obliged to operate a strict smoke-free
workplace policy. Employers should make their employees fully aware that any member of staff who breaches this policy will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. It is imperative that employers enforce the law.Maternity, Adoptive and other forms of leave from Employment
Paid leave of absence for mothers, whose babies are born through surrogacy arrangements, falls outside the scope of the law.
In September 2013 The European Court of Justice found 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. 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 European Court of Justice which found that the woman did not have any automatic right to Adoptive Leave.
The legal opinion of the Advocate General stated that her 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 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.
Rights to Maternity and Adoptive Leave defined:
If an employee becomes pregnant while employed in Ireland she is entitled to take Maternity Leave. This entitlement extends to all female employees regardless of their length of service and the number of hours worked per week etc.
Since March 1st 2007, employees have a statutory right to 26 weeks’ Maternity Leave. A further 16 weeks’ Additional Maternity Leave is available to them should they wish to take advantage of it. Employees are not obliged to avail of the entire period of leave open to them; however,
they must take a minimum of two weeks prior to the birth and at least 4 weeks after giving birth.
If the baby is born prematurely then Maternity Leave starts on the day the baby is born.
Employees are obliged to notify their employer of their wish to take Maternity Leave as soon as is reasonably practicable (not later than 4 weeks prior to the desired commencement date). Employees must produce a medical certificate confirming the expected birth date. Employers must give paid time-off for doctor/midwife recommended medical appointments for all
pregnancies and employees are also entitled to attend one set of antenatal classes during one pregnancy. The employer should be given written notice 2 weeks in advance of such appointments. Expectant fathers are also entitled to be paid by their employer while attending one set of antenatal classes.
While some do, it is important to remember that employers are not obliged to pay employees while they are on Maternity Leave. Employees who have contributed enough PRSI can apply for Maternity Benefit from the Department of Social Protection. Employers, who do continue to pay employee salaries during Maternity Leave, often require the employee to forward to them any
Maternity Benefit Payment from the Department of Social Protection.
Most employees do not have any right to remuneration from their employer during Additional Maternity Leave and there is no state benefit payable during this time, however, employees are still entitled to avail of this extra 16 weeks away from the workplace immediately after the conclusion of their regular Maternity Leave. It is important to note that Employees must
apply to their employer in writing 4 weeks prior to the conclusion of their Maternity Leave if they wish to avail of this Additional Maternity Leave.
Employees are protected against discrimination or loss of employment through redundancy or dismissal on grounds relating to pregnancy and Maternity Leave. Employees must give notice of their intention to return from Maternity Leave at least 4 weeks prior to doing so. Employees must return on the same terms and conditions as when they left (unless this in not reasonably
practicable).
There is an obligation on the employer to carry out a specific risk assessment for employees who are pregnant, and for those who are breastfeeding or who have just given birth, in order to assess whether there are any workplace hazards for these employees. Should this risk assessment determine that hazards (that cannot be eliminated) exist the employee will be
moved to alternative work or, if this is not feasible, the employee will be granted health and safety leave. The employee is entitled to payment from the employer in respect of the first 21 days of such health and safety leave and can apply for social welfare benefit for any period thereafter.
Adoptive Leave:
When an employee is adopting a child she is entitled to a minimum of 24 consecutive weeks’ ordinary Adoptive Leave starting on the day of placement of the child. Only the adoptive mother is entitled to avail of Adoptive Leave from employment, except in the case where a male is the sole adopter.
There is no statutory obligation on employers to provide pay to employees while they are on Adoptive Leave – some companies, however, do offer this benefit to employees. Individuals may be entitled to Adoptive Benefit from the Department of Social Protection.
Employees are also entitled to take 16 weeks' additional unpaid Adoptive Leave immediately following the period of standard Adoptive Leave. As is the case with Additional Maternity Leave, Employees must apply for the Additional Adoptive Leave in writing 4 weeks prior to the end of ordinary Adoptive Leave. In special circumstances, for instance cases involving foreign adoption, Additional Adoptive Leave may be taken at a time not directly following the regular Adoptive Leave period.
An employee’s entitlement to Annual Leave and Public Holidays will continue to accrue as normal during Maternity Leave and Adoptive Leave.
It is essential for employers to remember that, similar to other forms of protective leave, employees are entitled to return to the role they held immediately before commencing Adoptive Leave, subject to the employee having notified the employer of the intention to return to work, not later than four weeks before the date of expected return.
Grievances in the Workplace
It is essential for companies to have a Grievance Policy in place so that employees know the correct procedure to follow when addressing problems or concerns regarding work, Management or another staff member. The policy should also ensure that employees can formally raise a grievance regarding any decisions or actions taken by their employer. Employees should be encouraged to make Management formally aware of situations where they feel that a policy or procedure is not being followed or applied correctly to all employees.
It is understandable and acceptable that when people work together misunderstandings, concerns or problems can arise. Companies should implement a culture of openness as well as a willingness to listen and co-operate. The hope here is that issues/misunderstandings can be resolved informally in an efficient and an effective manner. However, where such issues remain unresolved they can become grievances. Employees should be encouraged to seek resolution of an issue by utilising the Company’s Grievance Procedure.
Sample Grievance Procedure
1) Staff should approach their Manager in the first instance to arrange a meeting to discuss, and attempt to resolve, the problem/concern. (See point 4 below for procedure when the grievance involves the Manager). The employee should be asked to document their grievance in writing. This is very important. 2) The employee should be allowed to have a colleague (of their choice) accompany them at the meeting for support purposes. 3) The issue should be discussed in detail and a reasonable timeframe for resolution should be worked out (1 working week is a reasonable timeframe in most instances). 4) If the employee is not satisfied with the outcomeafter the relevant time has elapsed, he or she should appeal to the General Manager. If the initial grievance relates to an employee’s direct Manager then he or she should skip directly to this stage. 5) The problem/grievance should be discussed in detail once again with the General Manager and a reasonable timeframe for resolution should again be given (typically 1 working week is sufficient; this timeframe may vary depending on the severity of the issue/type of complaint). 6) If the employee is dissatisfied with the outcome of the final stage of the procedure then further recourse should be made available and the employee should be made aware that he or she can request a meeting with a Company Director. 7) The issue should be discussed for a third time and a reasonable timeframe for resolution given (again, depending on the severity of the issue, 5 working days should be sufficient). 8) The decision, following the exhaustion of the entire process outlines above, should be final and no further Company appeal need be entertained. 9) If the employee is still unhappy with the outcome he or she should then choose to seek recourse through external bodies.Click the below image to download your Guide to issuing Contracts of Employment
Asking to be fired – Why an employer must not adhere to this request
An employee recently requested that his employer dismiss him. When asked why he wanted to be let go the employee explained that he wished to spend more time at home helping his sick wife with the children and assisting with the domestic duties. The employer was considering doing as the employee asked as he felt that the motives behind the request were practical.
The employer, however, took a few moments to think about the request. He concluded that the employee had been a diligent worker and so was reluctant to see the employee leave his role. In the hopes that it might encourage the employee to consider changing his mind the employer decided to offer the employee a small pay rise and to be more flexible with him in terms of his working hours. After the employer made the offer the employee became frustrated and again asked the employer to fire him.
The employer was confused as to why the employee was so adamant that he wanted to be fired as he had always seemed quite satisfied in his role. The employer also wondered why the employee didn’t simply resign if he wanted to go so badly. The employer decided to seek some advice on the situation prior to making his final decision. After some research the employer realised that this request was a common one and that motives behind this type of request were typically financially-based ones.
If an employee leaves employment voluntarily and without a reasonable cause then he or she may be disqualified from getting Jobseeker's Benefit for 9 weeks, however, if the employee is dismissed from employment then he would be entitled to claim benefits earlier.
Social Welfare Fraud is a serious offense.
The employee became extremely angry when the employer refused to dismiss him. Had the employer satisfied the request and fired the employee the individual could have lodged a case for unfair dismissal. The employer was fortunate that he sought advice after receiving the request from the employee. Due to the fact that the employee had not done anything to warrant his dismissal it is likely that a claim would have succeeded in an Employment Appeals Tribunal scenario – Unfair Dismissal can lead to an award of up to 2 years’ salary.
Employers receiving requests along these lines should seek advice from Irish Employment Legislation specialists prior to taking any action.
Compensation and Benefits Management in Ireland
In a competitive job market like this compensation and benefits take on an added level of significance. The management of benefits and compensation can also take on an added level of complexity..... they can cause added stress for an already pressurised environment.
The HR Company removes any complexity from the scenario. We take the guess-work out of decision making by surveying the marketplace and keeping you informed of everything you need to be aware of.
On top of salary compensation and benefits can include items such as a company car, bonuses, sales incentives like commission, extra paid time off, medical insurance, stock options and much more. It can be very difficult to stay on top of this HR function.
We take the headache out of the administration of compensation and benefits for you by providing you with a variety of specialised back-office services. These include everything from processing pension and medical plans to managing and organising your company’s Organisational Health Index.
Here is a list of some of the services we offer to assist companies with their compensation and benefits management:
•Pension/medical membership processing
•Salary survey, planning & administration
•Salary/Bonus/Stock system processing
•Company Car policy management
•Mortgage application processing
•Maternity/Parental Leave benefits
•Flexible benefits
•Advise on, manage and organise annual Benefits and Expo & Health Awareness Programme
•Manage & organise company OHI
•Manage Outplacement Programme
•Tailored generation of reports & statistics
Our goal is to ensure your HR functions run as smoothly as possible so that you can focus on the ensuring the other aspects of your business are running as smoothly as possible.
If you need guidance or support with benefit and compensation administration then look no further than The HR Company.
Protections for Whistleblowers in Ireland
The Protected Disclosure Bill 2013 was published on July 3rd 2013 by Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Brendan Howlin, T.D. The Bill is to establish a comprehensive legislative framework protecting whistleblowers in all industries in Ireland.
The purpose of the legislation is to protect workers who raise concerns regarding wrongdoing (or potential wrongdoing) that they have become aware of in the workplace. The Bill will offer significant employment and other protections to whistleblowers if they suffer any penalties at the hands of their employer for coming forward with information of wrongdoing in the workplace.
The legislation, which is due to be enacted in the autumn, closely reflects best practices in whistleblowing protection in developed nations around the world.
According to Minister Howlin the Bill “should instil all workers with confidence that should they ever need to take that decisive step and speak-up on concerns that they have about possible misconduct in the workplace, they will find that society values their actions as entirely legitimate, appropriate and in the public interest”.
Some key elements included in the Bill are as follows:
Compensation of up to a maximum of five years remuneration can be awarded in the case of an unfair dismissal that came about as a result of making a protected disclosure. This would be a massive step forward in Ireland’s attempt to match the standards set by other established nations.
It is important to note that limitations relating to the length of service that usually apply in the case of Unfair Dismissals are set aside in the case of protected disclosures.
As a result of this Bill whistleblowers will benefit from civil immunity from actions for damages and a qualified privilege under defamation law.
The legislation provides a number of disclosure channels for potential whistleblowers and stresses that the disclosure, rather than the whistleblower, should be the focus of the attention.
Protections for the whistleblower remain in place even where the information disclosed does not reveal any wrongdoing when examined. Deliberate false reporting, however, will not be protected.
These measures, when enacted, should encourage more people to come forward, and feel comfortable doing so, when they become aware of (or suspect) any criminal activity, misconduct or wrongdoing in the workplace.
