All you need to know about HR!
Supporting Business Owners, Directors and HR Professionals with the latest in HR trends and news.
June 2015
Disabled Employee not Accommodated by Employer Awarded €30,000!
As redress for infringement of her statutory rights and breaches of the Employment Equality Acts, former employee of a Multi-National Retailer receives compensation in the amount of €30,000.
The Director of the Equality Tribunal delegated this case to Orlaith Mannion, Equality Officer on 13th August 2013.
The specific case concerned a claim by Ms. H against her employer, a Multi-National Retailer. Ms. H claimed that she was discriminated against on the grounds of disability in terms 6(2)(g) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2011. The claimant stated that her employer failed to provide appropriate measures to allow her to continue to be employed in her original role with the retailer.
The claimant had worked on the customer service desk for 30 years and enjoyed her position there. In 2001 Ms. H had an operation to remove her colon and, after that, had some medical issues including episodes of diarrhoea. A few years after this operation, Ms. H once again had surgery – this time on her knees as a result of osteoarthritis and had issues with the toilet facilities in her place of work after this as the one suitable toilet in the store was upstairs. One toilet located on Ms. H’s floor required that she walk across the shopping centre to access it. This toilet did not offer a huge improvement for Ms. H as she had to hoist herself up and down onto the toilet by gripping the doorframe.
When the store was being revamped, the claimant suggested that her employer take the opportunity to install a toilet for people with disabilities – customers and employees alike. No disabled toilet was installed and Ms. H said she heard many excuses for this throughout her service with her employer.
Ms. H claimed that in 2009 she was informed that a disabled toilet was due to be installed. Ms. H went on holidays shortly after hearing this news and, unfortunately, broke her leg while away. Ms. H was a wheelchair user for a period of 6 months and underwent more surgeries in January and July 2010. When she was back on her feet Ms. H wanted to return to work and was medically certified as fit to do so in July 2011. Ms. H’s doctor made some recommendations that would allow Ms. H to return to work –
The doctor recommended that Ms. H should return on a phased basis, that she should be able to sit for periods during her working day and that she have access to a disabled toilet.
The employer responded stating that the claimant returning on a phased basis would be facilitated. However, they were not able to fulfil the other recommendations of the doctor. According to the store management, Ms. H’s role (behind the kiosk) had changed during her absence and, although a chair had been available there previously, the store was no longer able to facilitate a chair behind the kiosk and therefore they could offer her a role at the checkout when she returned to work instead of Ms. H returning to her previous role. A checkout role would not have been practical for Ms. H to take as she would have been required to lift heavy grocery items and this was something that she was not able to do (and had not been required to do as part of her Customer Service role).
Also, according to the management, because the store revamp had been suspended, so too had the provision of a disabled toilet. However, the respondent did offer the claimant extra time to use the shopping centre’s disabled toilet and the management of the store felt as though this was reasonable.
Ms. H felt that the checkout role was unsuitable and would have been a demotion. She also felt that the toilet scenario was unacceptable as there was often queues at this toilet and her condition did not allow for her to wait in queues for long periods. Ms. H raised a formal grievance which was heard in August 2011. The complaint was not upheld and neither was Ms. H’s appeal. Ms. H felt that her employer ignored her disabilities since her surgeries in 2005 and felt as though her employer had failed in their duty of care to her.
The respondent refuted any claims of discrimination and claimed that the employee had been out of work for a much longer period than the doctor had originally advised (6-9 months). More than one year after Ms. H broke her leg on holidays she attended a return to work meeting and the respondent pointed out that Ms. H was outside of her support period and recommended that she attend the company doctor. Ms. H did so the following month and the Occupational Health Advisor recommended that she return to work on a phased basis in approximately 3 months' time. The Health Advisor also recommended that a risk assessment should take place and anything like slippy or uneven floors should be attended to in order that another fall was prevented.
The respondent was satisfied for Ms. H to return when recommended by the Occupational Health Advisor (in approximately 3 months). However, as the Customer Service desk role had changed in the two years that Ms. H had been absent from work and (for various reasons e.g. lack of space) no chair was situated there any longer, the respondent was not especially fit for that particular role any longer. Ms. H and her doctor felt that the checkout operator role was not a valid alternative.
The Equality Officer found that Ms. H had been discriminated against by her employer. While her doctor’s request for her to return to work on a phased basis had been upheld, other notable recommendations were not fully adhered to.
MS. H was supposed to be allowed to sit for periods during the working shift – the customer service role would not have allowed for this and, while the checkout operator role allowed her to sit, it required lifting of heavy groceries. The Equality Officer found that providing a reasonable disabled toilet for Ms. H would have cost the respondent approximately €22,600.00 and this would not have imposed a burden on a company that, in 2013, reported revenue in Ireland as £2,315 million Sterling.
The employer did not show genuine engagement with the process of finding effective and practical measures to allow the claimant to return to work.
Therefore, the Equality Officer found in favour of the claimant.
In accordance with Section 82 of the Act, she ordered the respondent:
(a) pay the complainant €30,000 (the approximate equivalent of a year’s salary) in compensation for breaches of the Employment Equality Acts. The award is redress for the infringement of Ms H’s statutory rights and, therefore, not subject to income tax as per Section 192A of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 (as amended by Section 7 of the Finance Act 2004).
(b) conduct a review of its employment policies and procedures to ensure that they are in compliance with these Acts with particular reference to how employees with disabilities are treated.
http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2014/April/DEC-E2014-030.html
Important Points for Employers re Data Protection
The Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003 provide rules that apply to the collection, use, disclosure and transfer abroad of information about individuals. The Acts cover the principals that companies must follow when processing personal data about employees as well as information about clients/residents.
The Acts also give individuals certain rights in relation to personal data that is held about them.
If you as a Company collect, host or process data about people on any type of computer or structured filing system, then you are considered a data controller under the Acts.
Every Company holding information about individuals should have a Data Protection Policy in place and should ensure that all IT administrators and employees with access to personal/confidential information are fully trained on the rights and responsibilities associated with that access.
Billy Hawkes, the Data Protection Commissioner, ensures that companies that keep personal data are in compliance with the Acts. The Commissioner has a range of enforcement powers to help guarantee that the provisions of the Acts are observed. The Commissioner can serve legal notices compelling data controllers to provide information needed to assist with his enquiries. He can also compel data controllers to implement provisions of the Acts in a particular prescribed manner.
He may investigate complaints made by members of the public and can authorise officers to enter sites with the aim of inspecting the type of personal information kept as well as how it is processed and the security measures that the data controller has in place. Companies are required to co-operate fully with such data protection officers.
Data controllers who are found guilty of offences under the Acts can be fined up to €100,000 on conviction and may be ordered to delete all or part of their database.
The Data Protection Commissioner publishes a report annually naming, in certain cases, data controllers who were investigated by his office.
On 12th May 2014 Billy Hawkes launched his Annual Report for 2013. The report contains a summary of the activities of the Office of the Data Commissioner during the entire year.
The Annual Report highlights a huge number of individual complaints that were referred to the Office regarding difficulties in gaining access to personal data. According to the report these were as a result of poor customer service standards by commercial entities.
It appears as though individuals who feel as though they are not receiving sufficient customer service from a commercial entity are exercising their data protection rights more regularly and are more frequently requesting a copy of all personal data held by that entity.
If the initial query or request had been comprehensively dealt with in the first instance then perhaps they would have been less likely to exercise their data protection right to request a copy of all personal data held about them.
Employers should note that telephone call recordings are considered personal data. The Office has seen as increase in the number of access requests to data controllers by individuals seeking a copy of telephone recordings. Organisations are obliged to inform data subjects that their call may be recorded if a call recording system is in operation.
Throughout the course of 2013 the Office opened more than 900 complaints for investigation. More than 500 of these complaints (56.8%) were from individuals who experienced difficulty when gaining access to their personal data held by organisations. This was a record high for this type of complaint which is indicative of the increased level of awareness among the general public of their statutory right of access.
Last year the Office dealt with 1,577 Data Security Breach notifications. The 2013 Annual Report contains a variety of case studies regarding Data Security Breach investigations. One such case study involved the taking of a client list by a former employee to a new employer. This has emerged as a regular issue in recent years and is a serious breach that is a big concern for all employers.
Civil sanctions may result where a person suffers any damage as a consequence of failures on the part of a data controller to meet his/her obligations.
In November 2013 it was discovered that the personal information of more than 1,500,000 people was compromised by a major security breach at a Co. Clare based Company. In an RTE Morning Ireland interview at the time, Mr. Hawkes admitted that “cyber-criminals have become extremely sophisticated and it can be quite difficult to actually identify that your system has been perpetrated.” This was one of the worst data breaches in Irish history.
The Society for Chartered IT Professionals in Ireland, known as the Irish Computer Society (ICS), carried out a recent survey on data protection in Ireland and the results, which were published in January 2014, were astonishing.
256 Irish based companies were surveyed and a record number of data breaches were reported to have occurred in 2013. Findings revealed that one in two of the surveyed companies experienced a data breach during the last 12 months. In fact, more than 20% of the companies contacted by the ICS reported multiple breaches. These statistics mark a significant increase on last year’s figures when 43% of companies examined reported a breach.
According to the results, one third of employees are not fully aware of data protection issues and many receive insufficient data protection training or, alarmingly, no relevant training whatsoever.
Several IT managers admitted that Data Protection policies are not implemented at all in their Company or they are only partially adhered to. The survey has highlighted the need for companies to manage their data processing environment much more carefully and provide additional training for their IT administrators and all employees who have contact with personal information pertaining to employees/clients. According to the ICS survey, negligence on the part of employees accounted for 77% of the reported incidents. Hackers seeking to obtain data and unencrypted laptops were also cited as major threats.
According to Fintan Swanton, Chairman of the Association of Data Protection Officers, “Clear policies and procedures are vital, with regular refresher training and timely reviews to ensure that staff are complying with the structures.”
It is important for employers to be aware that new data protection legislation will require most organisations to appoint a Data Protection Officer.
EAT Annual Report Highlights Shocking Statistics for Employers
The 2012 Annual Report of the Employment Appeals Tribunal has highlighted some astounding statistics
- According to Chairperson Kate T O’Mahony’s foreword “there are presently approximately 5,000 cases awaiting a hearing, of these 37% are unfair dismissals cases.”
- According to the Chairperson’s foreword, “In its appellate jurisdiction the Tribunal deals with disputes about matters occurring during the course of the employment relationship. A notable trend in recent years has been the steady increase each year in the percentage of the Tribunal’s appellate work which, significantly doubled from 12% in 2011 to 24% in 2012.”
- In 2012, employees had some sort of additional representation at the hearing before the Employment Appeals Tribunal on 1,917 occasions – employers, however, only had representation in 1,116 cases. It is clear that unfair dismissal cases see the highest level of representation but it is interesting to note that employee parties had representation in 1,071 cases and employer parties only had representation on 740 occasions.
- In 2012, the Employment Appeals Tribunal received 5,623 cases.
- The number of appeals against the recommendations of the Rights Commissioners received in 2012 was 1,349 – this number represents a 38% increase on the previous year and a staggering 81% increase on the 2010 total.
- The top 3 categories of cases referred to the Employment Appeals Tribunal in 2012 were Unfair Dismissal (1,742), Redundancy (1,239) and Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment (929).
- In 2012, the Employment Appeals Tribunal awarded almost €7million in 377 Unfair Dismissal cases. The average compensation awarded was more than €18.5k. *96 claimants received more than €25k
- The number of Payment of Wages cases disposed of in 2011 was 154 – this number rose by 164% to 407 in 2012.
- The number of Maternity Protection Acts appeals rose from just 2 in 2011 to 11 in 2012.
Annual Leave Calculation, all hours to be included
Did you know that all hours worked by any employee are taken into account when calculating Annual Leave?
This will include any hours worked in addition to normal working hours.
Further to this there are additional leave periods that will be included when calculating Annual Leave for an employee:
- Maternity Leave
- Public Holidays
- Adoptive leave
- Parental Leave
- The first 13 weeks of Carers leave
- Force Majeure Leave
These are protected leave periods and therefore Employees continue to accrue Annual Leave while on any of the above listed leaves.
Leave that is not included when calculating Annual Leave for an employee:
- Sick Leave
- Occupational Injury (sick leave as a result of such injury)
- Temporary Lay-off
- Career Break
Employers slowly beginning to ban e-cigarettes in Irish workplaces.
Employers are starting to implement e-smoking bans in workplaces in line with the current tobacco smoking ban. In March 2014 Bus Eireann and Dublin Bus extended their respective “no smoking” policies to prohibit the use of e-cigarettes and vapour devices on their busses – employees, as well as customers, are banned from smoking any form of cigarette except in designated areas. Irish Rail also implemented the ban in the recent past and now universities and other institutions and companies are beginning to follow suit by disallowing the use of cigarette substitutes. There are a few reasons for this -
- To avoid ambiguity – from a distance e-cigarettes can appear quite like a regular cigarette.
- Because e-cigarettes contain nicotine – nicotine is a highly addictive and harmful drug. Nicotine was formerly used as an insecticide and can increase blood pressure and heart rate in humans.
- Because the effects of e-smoking are not yet known – e-cigarettes are a relatively new innovation and consequently the long-term effects on health are unclear.
- Because of the vapour omitted – there is uncertainty over the contents and effects of this vapour on the e-cigarette smoker and the people in his or her presence.
While there is no legislation currently in place in Ireland disallowing the use of e-cigarettes and similar products in the workplace, more and more employers are beginning to enforce their own internal rules in relation to their use at work.
However, if the rules around e-smoking in the workplace are not covered in the Employee Handbook, the employer could find it difficult to enforce such a policy. The rules surrounding e-cigarettes should be available for all employees - non-e-smokers as well as e-smokers - so there is no confusion over what is/is not allowed.
If an employer is considering revising the company’s policies then it is imperative that he or she ensures that the new rules are clearly communicated to employees through an update of the Employee Handbook (which should contain all HR policies).
At least two employees in The United Kingdom have recently brought cases forward claiming that they were “victimised” by their employers for use of e-cigarettes in the course of their work. It is only a matter of time before we start to see cases trickle through the system in Ireland and so it would serve employers well to prepare for this potentially costly exposure by introducing very clear policies in relation to e-cigarettes as soon as possible.
Important Employer Responsibilities re Employees working with VDUs
A significant number of employees regularly work with Visual Display Units (VDUs) as part of their role.
Employers – Did you know that there are a range of measures that you must adhere to with regard to VDUs in your workplace?
*The following are the categories of employees who will be covered by these Regulations;
-
If the employee has no choice but to the use the VDU to carry out his or her work.
-
If the employee normally uses the VDU for continuous periods of more than one hour.
-
If the VDU is generally used by the employee on a daily basis.
Please note that a normal laptop is not covered by these Regulations due to the fact that the keyboard is tilt-able and separate from the screen so as to allow the user to find a comfortable working position hence avoiding fatigue in the arms or hands of the employee.
*In accordance with the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Acts 2005 and 2010, employees working with VDUs are entitled to have their workstation assessed in line with the following requirements;
-
The Company must ensure that the general use of the equipment is not a source of risk for the employee.
-
The Company is obliged to perform an analysis of the employee’s workstation in order to evaluate the safety and health conditions to which it may give rise.
-
The Company must take appropriate measures to remedy any risks found during the workstation analysis.
*Upon the commencement of their employment employers must ensure that;
-
Employees are trained in the use of the VDU workstation and given information about health and safety factors.
-
Employees receive periodic breaks or changes of routine (away from the VDU).
-
Employees receive appropriate eye and eyesight tests (or may opt for either) before working with VDUs as well as at regular intervals throughout their employment with the Company.
If an employee experiences any eyesight/physical problems as a result of working with a VDU, the employee should highlight the issue to his or her manager as soon as possible.
*Some notable points for employers;
• If special corrective appliances (glasses) are required exclusively for working at a display screen, they must be provided by the employer at no cost to the employee. The costs of minimum requirement frames and lenses must be borne by the employer.
• Should the glasses be used also for other purposes the employer must cover the cost of the correction required for working with display screens only.
• Employer obligations relating to the various components of the workstation (from chairs to the display screen, lighting, noise levels, heat, radiation and humidity) are also included in the Acts.
We have created a draft VDU Policy for you to incorporate in your Employee Handbook alongside all of your other HR policies.
Click the below image in order to download our draft policy that you can tailor for your Company.
Employers – Do You Know the New Regulations re Mobile Phone Use While Driving?
Employers - Did you know that, as of today May 1st, 2014, New Legislation on the Use of Mobile Phones While Driving will be effective?
For some time now it has been illegal to talk on the phone or send text messages while driving. However, an amendment, effective 1st May, 2014, will tighten up on the rules which saw some people dodge penalties if the phone was operated while resting in a “cradle” or via a hands-free kit, for instance.The amendment to the existing legislation governing phone use while driving, which was signed by Leo Varadkar, Minister for Transport, on 11th April, 2014, makes it an offence for an individual to "hold” a mobile phone while driving a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place.
Holding the mobile device includes supporting or “cradling” it with any part of your body (not just your hand) e.g. between the neck and shoulder. It is not a requisite that a person is actually engaged in a conversation on the phone. Similarly a person sending or even reading a text message (including SMS/MMS), or accessing information via the internet/e-mails etc. is committing an offence if "holding” the device as outlined above.
Sending or reading a text, in this instance, does not include anything done without touching the mobile phone or through voice activation.
The offence is punishable on conviction with a fine of up to €1,000 (first offence). The fine could reach €2,000 for a second offence. Three offences within 12 months could see a motorist face a 3 month jail term in addition to a fine. This is in addition to penalty points.
Close to 10,000 people were detected holding a mobile while driving in the Republic of Ireland between the beginning of January and the end of March 2014.
Assistant Garda Commissioner, John Twomey, communicated the staggering statistic that a motorist is four times more likely to have a collision when using a mobile phone.
Employers should issue employees with a notice detailing the important new regulations so that they are aware of their responsibilities. This notice should also serve to inform the employees that the Company will not cover the cost of road traffic offences including fines received under the penalty points system. Your notice should let employees know that these costs will be borne by the employee regardless of whether the vehicle was being driven for private or business use at the time the offences occurred.
We have prepared a sample Notice to Employees to help you to explain the new legislation – this can be downloaded by clicking the below image.
We hope you find it helpful!
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’.
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.
Under 18 Work Register – Employer Responsibilities
In accordance with the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1996 employers are required to keep a register of employees that are under the age of 18. The basis for this is to guarantee the protection of young people and to ensure the workload assumed is not jeopardising their education.
During a National Employment Rights Authority (NERA) assessment the inspector will request access to the company’s register of employees under the age of 18 (if the company employs workers in this category).
There are strict rules that employers must adhere to when employing those under the age of 18.
According to the Act employers cannot employ children under the age of 16 in regular full-time jobs.
Children aged 14 and 15 may be employed on a controlled basis.
Some rules to pay attention to:
- They can do light work during the school holidays – 21 days off must be given during this period.
- They can be employed as part of an approved work experience or educational programme where the work is not harmful to their health, safety or development.
- They can be employed in film, cultural/advertising work or sport under licences issued by the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation.
- Children aged 15 may do a maximum of 8 hours of light work per week during the school term. The maximum working week for children outside of the school term is 35 hours (or up to 40 hours if they are on approved work experience).
- The maximum working week for children aged 16 and 17 is 40 hours with a maximum of 8 hours per day.
There are many obligations on the employer when he or she employs a young person – here is a list of some of the items that employers must be vigilant of:
An employer must be provided with a copy of the young person’s birth certificate (or other documentation proving age) prior to the commencement of employment.
Before employing a child an employer must obtain the written permission of the parent or guardian of the child.
An employer must maintain a register of employees under 18 containing the following information:
- The full name of the young person or child
- The date of birth of the young person or child
- The time the young person or child commences work each day
- The time the young person or child finishes work each day
- The rate of wages or salary paid to the young person or child for his or her normal working hours each day, week, month or year, as the case may be, and
- The total amount paid to each young person or child by way of wages or salary
- The employer is obliged to ensure that the young person receives a minimum rest period of 12 consecutive hours in each period of 24 hours.
- The employer is obliged to ensure that the young person receives a minimum rest period of 2 days which shall, where possible, be consecutive, in any 7 day period.
- The employer cannot require or permit the young person to do work for any period without a break of at least 30 consecutive minutes.
When should you use a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA)?
A non-disclosure agreement (NDA), often referred to as a confidentiality or a secrecy agreement, is a legal contract between two or more parties outlining knowledge and/or information that the parties wish to share with one another but wish not to have accessed by third parties.
By signing the document the parties agree not to disclose information that it contains. An NDA creates a confidential relationship between the parties to protect any type of sensitive material such as details of trade secrets – it prevents the dissemination of company or project-specific information that, if leaked, could be damaging for one or both of the parties involved. It usually prevents the signing party from benefiting commercially from the information.
NDAs are commonly signed when two companies are considering doing business with each other and need to exchange information to benefit the partnership. A mutual NDA restricts both parties in their use of the materials provided; alternatively, an NDA can also exclusively restrict the use of material by one of the individuals or groups involved.
Employers often request that an employee signs an NDA or a similar form of contract when he or she commences employment, or a new assignment, in order to maintain confidentiality.
An NDA incorporates various basics – the details of the parties who must adhere to the agreement and the information to be kept confidential (often including items such as unpublished patent applications, financial information, customer lists, discoveries and business strategies). When drafting an NDA it is important to include the disclosure period in the contract.
Those writing the NDA should note that if the recipient had prior knowledge, obtained legally, of the matters contained within the NDA - or if the contents are publically available - the signatory cannot be held liable for dispersing the material. Similarly, if the materials are subject to a subpoena or a court order, this would override the contract.
The NDA should have a clause that forces the signing party to return or destroy the confidential information where the project or assignment is abandoned or when they no longer need access to the information.
Breach of the NDA is a serious offense – when this occurs the information owner can apply to court to have an injunction put in place to stop future breaches – Often it is too late at this stage as the damage has already been done. A second option here is to sue the party at fault for damages suffered by the breach. The consequences of breaching the NDA should be set out in the NDA and should include loss of profit as well as loss of reputation and costs and expenses caused by the breach. It is important to remember that Court proceedings can be a long and arduous process.
It can be extremely difficult to prove that an NDA has been breached but if a breach is proven, this can provide the basis for a claim. Given that it is not always possible to prove that an NDA has been breached some people do not rate them – however, at the very least the NDA holds some value in that it clearly sets out in writing what is expected of the parties to avoid any ambiguity and NDAs also serve as a reminder of the confidential nature of the information and act as a deterrent.
The Importance of having an Employee Handbook
An Employee Handbook, often referred to as the employee manual, is a book/document containing information about the company and its policies and procedures. It is given to employees by the employer – typically when they first join the organisation.
This manual is an excellent place to compile all important information pertaining to the company rules and regulations. It can provide useful details for new staff during the induction process and can be a good reference point for existing employees. An employee handbook gives clarity to employees, advises them in certain situations and creates a culture where problems are addressed in a consistent manner.
An employee handbook communicates all of your workplace and HR policies and protects a business from expensive disputes with employees. The National Employment Rights Authority (NERA) aims to achieve a national culture of employment rights compliance. If a NERA inspector visits your workplace they may ask to see the company handbook to determine whether or not the company has appropriate policies and procedures in place and that it adopts the appropriate measures when various workplace scenarios arise.
Examples of some of the items that should be incorporated in an employee handbook are as follows:
•Annual Leave Entitlements
•Maternity Leave
•Paternity Leave
•Adoptive Leave
•Parental Leave
•Carer’s Leave
•Compassionate Leave
•Jury Leave
•Employment / Career Break
•Induction
•Performance Management
•Probation
•Grievance Procedures
•Disciplinary Procedures
•Bullying & Harassment
•Drugs and Alcohol Policies / Misuse of Substances / Testing for Intoxicants
•Dress Code, Uniforms, Personal Grooming and Hygiene
•Office Phone and Mobile Phone Use
•Internet, Email and Social Media Use in the Workplace
•Breaks and Rest Periods
•Sick Leave / Sick Pay
•Punctuality / Timekeeping
•Unauthorised Absence
•Clock-In and Clock-Out
•Vehicles and Company Property
•Use of Company Property
•Confidentiality
•Right to Search
•Copyright
•Ethics and Conduct
•Retirement
•Time-off-in-Lieu
•Flexitime
•Training & Education Funding / Study Leave
•Use of CCTV
•Garda Clearance / VettingEmployee dismissed for nonconsensual use of premises awarded €25k
A recent Labour Court recommendation where a former employee was awarded €25,000 in compensation for Unfair Dismissal illustrates why employers should make sure to attend any hearings that involve them.
The case in question concerns a former employee's claim that he was Unfairly Dismissed after he used the Company premises without the permission of his employer.
In accordance with section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, this particular worker referred his case to the Labour Court in June of 2013. He agreed to be bound by the Recommendation of the Labour Court.
A Labour Court hearing took place in February of this year; however, the Company declined to attend the hearing and did not appoint any representation.
This meant that the evidence submitted was solely that of the Claimant. The Court found it 'regrettable' that the employer declined to attend the hearing in any form and found it disappointing that the Company did not avail of its opportunity to present the version of events leading to this dispute from their perspective.
The former employee accepted that he had used the Company's premises without prior consent. However, he did not accept that his behaviour constituted gross misconduct and, consequently, he contested the gravity of the punishment. The employee argued that his dismissal was disproportionate to his actions and maintained that the dismissal was unfair.
Based on the uncontested submissions of the employee (the Claimant) the Court was satisfied that the penalty of dismissal was inconsistent with the actions of the employee and the Court determined that a warning would have been more appropriate in the circumstances.
According to the Court, the dismissal was both procedurally and substantially unfair and so the Court recommended that the Company pay compensation in the amount of €25,000 to their former employee in respect of his Unfair Dismissal. This figure was to be in full and final settlement.
The difference between Constructive and Unfair Dismissal:
Constructive Dismissal is the term used when an employee terminates his or her employment based on the conduct of the employer. Unfair Dismissal is slightly different in that unfair dismissal cases arise when the employee feels as though he or she has been dismissed by the employer on unfair grounds. Unlike in an unfair dismissals case where 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. Employees claim constructive dismissal/unfair dismissal under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2007. If it is found that the employee has been unfairly dismissed he or she could either be awarded compensation for the loss of earnings suffered by the dismissal or could be placed back in their original role – However, this is not common practice due to the expected tension or strained relationship between employer/employee and due to the amount of time that is likely to have passed between the termination of the employment contract and the resolution of the case. Typically, an employee needs to have accrued 52 weeks’ continuous service with the employer. However, it is crucial for the employer to bear in mind that 52 weeks’ continuous service is not always an essential element. Employees dismissed for trade union membership or because they are pregnant/exercise their right to parental leave, for instance, do not have to have accrued 12 months’ continuous service prior to claiming unfair/constructive dismissal under the Acts. If the employer acts unreasonably towards the employee or breaches the contract of employment (or demonstrates that they no longer intend to adhere to the terms and conditions outlined therein) then the employer is at risk of a claim under the Acts. 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. It is also very important for employers to attend Labour Court hearings if they are scheduled so they can give evidence in support of their decision. Also, the Court can look less favourably upon employers who fail to attend and can award higher levels of compensation to the employee. 
Trade Disputes and Industrial Action
According to the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 a Trade Dispute is any dispute between employers and employees that is “connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms or conditions of or affecting the employment, of any person”. Industrial Action is collective action taken by employees to compel their employer to “accept or not to accept terms or conditions of or affecting employment.”
Typically, employees decide to take industrial action as a result of a grievance over pay, hours of work, holidays or in support of a co-worker (or former co-worker) who is deemed to have been treated unfairly in some way.
Examples of industrial action may include strike action, a picket, a ‘work-to-rule’ or even an overtime ban. Employers should make every effort to avoid industrial action by maintaining a harmonious working environment because industrial action can be an extremely trying time for all concerned.
A strike is a work stoppage that is caused by the mass refusal of employees to carry out their work activities. Strikes and industrial action in general, are extremely disruptive to a company’s daily operations and can be damaging in both the short and long term. Strikes can last varying amounts of time but even short work stoppages tend to be quite destructive for companies as they can carry negative publicity with them along with the obvious operational drawbacks.
A picket is a form of protest where picketers (those involved in the picket) assemble outside of their workplace, or a relevant area, in an attempt to draw attention to their cause or to discourage others from entering the premises (crossing the picket line). The objective of picketing is to harm the company via a loss of business or through negative publicity. The goal is to persuade the employer to meet picketers’ demands to cease certain activities or introduce a pay increase or reverse a decision regarding redundancies, for instance.
A ‘work-to-rule’ is where employees do the bare minimum during their work hours. They carry out the tasks required by their contract of employment and nothing more in order to slow down productivity. Employees seek to demonstrate that they are valuable to the company and perform tasks that are above and beyond what they are contractually obliged to do on a regular basis.
An overtime ban is similar to a ‘work-to-rule’ in that employees take direction from their contracts of employment. Throughout an overtime ban, employees only work the hours that they are bound by in their contract. As the name suggests, employees refuse to work any overtime.
Strikes in the news:
Services Industrial Professional and Technical Union (SIPTU) employees at Dublin Street Parking Services, the vehicle clamping Company in Dublin, are due to be balloted today, Monday, 10th March 2014, on whether or not they should go on strike.
The dispute is over an outstanding pay rise that is owed since 2011. John King, SIPTU Organiser, stated that it is likely that the members will decide to strike over the 2.5% pay rise that they agreed to postpone until 2013 because they are still waiting for it to be applied.
Dublin City Council is threatening to pay the Company less for the service it provides if it does not meet the new target of 60,000 clamped vehicles per year.
SIPTU employees of the DAA and Aer Lingus are also threatening strike action as the dispute over their pension scheme continues. They are due to hold a four hour work stoppage at Dublin, Cork and Shannon on Friday, 14th March 2014 – just as the airport gets busy for the St. Patrick’s Day weekend. This strike could prove to be extremely disruptive to many individuals hoping to travel during the four hour stoppage and for the hours, and potentially days, that follow.
Saving Money by Minimising Waste
The Significance of Waste Management in Business. With mounting expenses it is becoming increasingly difficult for companies to remain in operation and to maintain employee numbers.
Managers are faced with a difficult task as they are continuously asked to reduce costs while simultaneously preserving the quality and service levels throughout the business.
Every company should implement a minimum waste policy to encourage employees to be more aware of their actions and their use or misuse of resources in the workplace and beyond.
Minimising the amount of waste in any organisation will have a positive effect on the bottom line. Consequently, introducing a minimum waste policy is essential if the business is to operate in the most cost-effective and efficient manner possible.
Employees should be obliged to avoid extravagant use of the company’s services, time and energy. Employees should be encouraged to take extra care during their normal work duties by avoiding unnecessary use of any resources within the Company.
Employees should be trained so that they handle all machines, equipment and stock with the utmost of care. Employers should have a policy in place that deals with the conservation of energy.
This policy would direct employees as to how they should proceed when it comes to dealing with lights and heat and so on. The use of all unnecessary lighting and heating should be prohibited and lights/heat should be turned off when their use is not required.
Doors/windows should be opened/closed where possible in order to maintain temperature levels. Similarly, taps should not be allowed to drip and any concerns about resources should be reported to management so that they may be evaluated and rectified.
The use of paper and ink throughout the course of the working day is something that a lot of companies find to be expensive. It is important that employees only print items that they need to have in hardcopy in order to reduce the waste of paper and ink. It is also significant for employers to encourage employees to print on both sides where possible. E-mailing, rather than posting, documents is another practice that should be encouraged. Recycling/reusing paper, where possible, is also a practice that should be considered.
If it is a case that an employee finds himself or herself without assignments to complete during working hours or if their work has come to a standstill for one reason or another then he or she should be encouraged to offer assistance to colleagues who have yet to complete their workload.
In terms of productivity, employees should be prepared to start their working day by the time they are scheduled to begin work and should proceed with their work-related activities without delay. The same process should be followed after break/lunch periods and employees should not conclude their work until the time that they are scheduled to do so.
If it becomes apparent that certain employees are struggling to organise their time then the provision of time-management training should be considered by management. It is also important to ensure that employees are aware of the most efficient methods of carrying out routine tasks (such as searching for documents or preparing spreadsheets) so time is used in the most efficient manner possible.
There are many techniques that a company can use to improve efficiency and exploring and implementing these methods is very important if a company is to remain competitive.