All you need to know about HR!
Supporting Business Owners, Directors and HR Professionals with the latest in HR trends and news.
June 2015
Christmas – Public Holiday Advice for Employers
With the Christmas Period upon us we thought you might find some information on Public Holidays and the relevant employer obligations/ responsibilities around pay useful.
There are nine Public Holidays in Ireland each year - they are:
•New Year's Day (1 January)
•St. Patrick's Day (17 March)
•Easter Monday (Changes every year)
•The first Monday in May, June & August
•The last Monday in October
•Christmas Day (25 December)
•St. Stephen's Day (26 December)
Here is a breakdown of the statutory outline of Public Holiday Entitlements under Irish Employment Legislation: Did you know that employees scheduled to work on a Public Holiday are entitled to an additional day's pay for the day?
For instance, let's take “Employee A” as an example –
“Employee A” works on the day the Public Holiday falls - let's say “Employee A” is a retail store employee and is required to work on St. Stephen's day as it is the first day of the store's seasonal sale.
*On a normal working day “Employee A” earns €100.
This means that “Employee A” is entitled to receive the usual €100 for the hours worked on the Public Holiday as well as an additional €100 - So “Employee A” receives €200 for working on the Public Holiday. If there is any ambiguity in ascertaining what an additional day's pay should equal the employer should look at the last day worked prior to the Public Holiday.
“Employee B” represents an employee who is normally scheduled to work on a day that a Public Holiday falls but is not required to work on that day (for example - an administrative assistant in a bank who typically works 09:00-17:00 Monday – Friday, who is not required to work on Easter Monday).
“Employee B” should receive their normal day's pay for that day as well as not being required to work on the Public Holiday. On a normal working day “Employee B” receives €100. When a Public Holiday falls “Employee B” will not be required to work on this day as the business is closed. “Employee B” will still receive their normal day’s pay.
The one that can cause the most confusion is the case of “Employee C” –
Employees who are not normally scheduled to work on the Public Holiday will receive one-fifth of their normal weekly pay for the day. “Employee C”, for instance, works Wednesday – Friday and receives €100 per day in remuneration. If a Public Holiday falls on a Tuesday, even though “Employee C” never works that day he or she still has the right to benefit from the Public Holiday in some way.
“Employee C” is still entitled to be paid a certain amount as a benefit for the Public Holiday (one-fifth of their normal weekly pay). If this employee earns €300 per three day week (Wednesday-Friday) they are entitled to earn an additional €60 during a week where a Public Holiday falls on a Monday or Tuesday.
The above rules will apply for all Public Holidays.
Equality Officer Awards €40,000 in Gender Discrimination Case
Equality Officer Awards €40,000 to Anne Delaney in response to complaint made against the Irish Prison Service.
Anne Delaney took a case against the Irish Prison Service because she was discriminated against by her employer on the grounds of gender in relation to promotion, training and conditions of employment.
In 2011, Ms. Delaney referred a complaint against her employer under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2008 to the Equality Tribunal. She alleged that the Irish Prison Service discriminated against her on grounds of gender when she applied for numerous posts over several years. Junior or less suitable/less experienced male candidates were appointed to the roles ahead of Ms. Delaney on all occasions.
After reviewing all of the submitted evidence, the Equality Officer was satisfied that the complainant, Ms. Delaney, had established a link between the incidents that she complained about. The Equality Officer considered the incidents as separate manifestations of the same disposition to discriminate. The Equality Officer criticised the lack of transparency stating that she was unsure of the fairness of the selection procedures that were followed. There were no marking schemes available for review and no records to help her to assess what grounds the hiring decisions were based on. It also became apparent that the same senior personnel were involved in the selection process for all posts.
The Equality Officer’s investigation of the complaint concluded that the Irish Prison Service discriminated against Ms. Delaney on gender grounds when she applied for a gym instructor course in 2001, when she applied for an Operational Support Group post in 2009, when she was asked to step down from the post of Acting ACO in August 2010 and again in September 2010 when she applied for an allowance carrying post in the Detail Office.
As a result of her findings the Equality Officer tasked with making the decision on the case ordered that Ms. Delaney be appointed to the position of Acting ACO, and placed on the permanent roster for that position. The Equality Officer backdated this appointment to the 5th of August 2010 and ensured that all consequential employment rights and entitlements, including remuneration and recognition of service, were upheld.
The Equality Officer found that Ms. Delaney had been subjected to discrimination on the grounds of her gender on numerous occasions during her career with the Irish Prison Service. The Equality Officer considered a compensatory award of €40,000 to be just and equitable in response to the distress suffered by Ms. Delaney as a result of the discrimination that she suffered. The Equality Officer felt as though €40,000 was a proportionate, effective and dissuasive sum to award. That component of the award was not in the form of remuneration and, consequently, was not subject to the PAYE/PRSI Code.
The Equality Officer found that the Irish Prison Service’s selection process for the allowance carrying post in the Detail Office (a post applied for by Ms. Delaney in September 2010) was deficient and non-compliant with Equality Legislation. The Equality Officer ordered that the Irish Prison Service ensure that a fair selection process be adopted in all future selections. She also ordered that the selection panel must be trained in the process and that it must set down the criteria in writing before embarking on the selection process. The Equality Officer also ordered that a marking scheme must be adopted and that the weighting should be given under each element. She also directed that notes must be retained for future reference.
DEC-E2013-155
DECISION NO: DEC-E/2013/155
Anne Delaney Vs Irish Prison Service
FILE NO: EE/2011/292
DATE OF ISSUE: 19th of November, 2013
Pension Obligations of Irish Employers
No matter how big or how small your company may be – or whether your employees are part-time, seasonal or fixed-term - every Irish employer is obliged to enter into a contract with a PRSA provider and to provide access to at least one standard PRSA for all ‘excluded employees’.
What are ‘excluded employees’? Employees are considered to be ‘excluded employees’ if:- their employer does not offer a pension scheme, or
- they are included in a pension scheme for death-in-service benefits only, or
- they are not eligible to join the company’s pension scheme or will not become eligible to join the pension scheme within six months from the date they began working there, or
- they are included in a pension scheme that does not permit the payment of additional voluntary contributions (AVCs).
Even if there is only one ‘excluded employee’, an employer must:
- enter into a contract with a PRSA provider (there is no charge for doing this)
- provide employees with access to a Standard PRSA
- allow reasonable paid leave of absence, subject to work requirements, so that excluded employees can set up a Standard PRSA
- make deductions from payroll if required
- advise employees in writing (normally on their payslip) at least once a month of their total contribution, including employer’s contribution, if any.
- You’re not obliged to give any advice to employees in relation to PRSAs, but you must allow your PRSA provider or intermediary reasonable access to your employees to brief them on PRSAs.
- You don’t have to contribute to PRSAs on behalf of your employees, but if you decide to do so, your contributions must be paid to the PRSA provider within 21 days of the end of the month in which the employer contributions are due. And please note that you cannot make any deductions from this payment.
- You are not responsible for the investment performance of PRSAs
IFG have many years of experience of providing Pension Scheme Design & Risk Advisory services to Irish companies. They would be delighted to answer any and all of your pension queries if you would like to find out more www.ifg.ie .
Employers reducing salaries without consent
If a salary reduction is imposed without consultation or employee agreement, an employee now only has three (rather than four) potential legal opportunities to seek redress from his or her employer.
If an employee’s wages are cut his or her first option is to claim Constructive Dismissal under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1997-2007. Constructive Dismissal is the term used when an employee terminates his or her employment based on the conduct of the employer. In this instance, the employee must be able to prove that their position became unsustainable as a direct result of the involuntary reduction in pay.
Secondly, where an employee’s salary is reduced, he or she has the opportunity to bring a trade dispute under the Industrial Relations Acts. The Industrial Relations Acts deal with disputes between employers and workers that are connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms and conditions of or affecting the employment, of any person.
Thirdly, if an employer cuts an employee’s pay, the employee could claim that their contract has been breached. Defending this could prove very costly for the employer. Furthermore, an injunction may be granted to prevent the contract breach/reinstate the original salary.
In the past employees whose wages were cut without prior consent had a fourth option. They had the opportunity to take a case (and were likely to succeed) under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. Claims in relation to a reduction in wages, however, may no longer be successful if taken under this Act as a result of a recent Employment Appeals Tribunal determination. The specific EAT case referenced here is an appeal of a Right’s Commissioner decision in the case of Santry Sports Clinic v 5 employees.
The employees in the aforementioned case were claiming for an 8% reduction in their pay that was imposed between February and March 2010. Santry Sports Clinic stated that the reduction was essential. According to the employer, all employees received letters detailing the 8% reduction in advance and, while only 30% of employees agreed to the reduction via return letters, no one officially objected or stated that they would not accept the pay cut and so it was implemented as planned.
The Employment Appeals Tribunal considered all evidence and representations made at the hearing as well as all other submissions made. The Tribunal noted the High Court decision in the case of Michael McKenzie and others and Ireland and the Attorney General and the Minister for Defence Rec. No. 2009. 5651JR. In paragraph 5.8 of this decision the Judge stated that “the Payment of Wages Act has no application to reductions as distinct from ‘deductions’.” The Tribunal followed the High Court decision on a point of law and, therefore, the appeal was successful and the decision of the Rights Commissioner was entirely overturned in the case of Santry Sports Clinic v 5 employees.
This case brought to light the fact that the Payment of Wages Act 1991 refers to “deductions” as opposed to “reductions” and, as a consequence, employees whose wages are reduced without prior consent are now unlikely to succeed if they opt to take a case against their employer under the Payment of Wages Act 1991.
This is particularly significant for claims that are currently being processed by the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
Employers need to remember that, although this option has essentially been closed off for employees as a result of the above-mentioned High Court decision and the EAT case, they still have several avenues open to them if they wish to take a claim where a reduction of wages has been imposed by the employer without prior consent.
Force Majeure Leave in the Irish Workplace
There are several types of leave that an employee may be entitled to. Some forms of leave are statutory entitlements and some other forms are not. Maternity Leave, for instance, must be given to employees when they are pregnant. Some forms of leave are paid and others are not. This can depend on statutory obligations and on the terms and conditions set out in the Contract of Employment. Annual Leave is a statutory entitlement and it must be paid by the
employer. Sick Leave, however, is not always paid by the employer (this depends on individual company policies).
Force Majeure Leave is less commonly discussed. The purpose of Force Majeure Leave is to provide limited, paid leave to enable an employee to deal with family emergencies resulting from injury or illness of a close family member. Force Majeure Leave applies where the immediate presence of the employee is urgent and indispensable (essential).
A close family member is defined as one of the following:
- A child or adopted child of the employee
- The husband/wife/partner (same or opposite sex) of the employee
- A parent/grandparent of the employee
- A brother/sister of the employee
- A person to whom the employee has a duty of care (where he or she is acting in loco parentis)
- A person in a relationship of domestic dependency with the employee
- Persons of any other class (if any) as may be prescribed
By its nature, an employee will not usually be able to give notice of the need to take Force Majeure Leave. The employee should, however, inform the employer (in writing) of reasons for taking the leave as soon as is reasonable practicable. The employee should provide details regarding the need for the leave and should confirm who the leave was taken in respect of.
Employers are obliged to keep a record of Force Majeure Leave taken by employees.
Employees will be entitled to:
- up to 3 days paid Force Majeure Leave in any consecutive 12 month period; or
- up to 5 days in a 36 consecutive month period.
Absence for part of a day is usually counted as a full day of Force Majeure Leave. Employees are entitled to receive pay for this type of leave. Employers can grant employees more than the number of days outlined above; however, they are not obliged to do so.
Employees are protected against Unfair Dismissal for taking Force Majeure Leave or for proposing to take it.
Death is not covered under Force Majeure Leave – Leave taken when a death occurs falls under Compassionate Leave and this tends to depend on employee contracts as well as custom and practice within the workplace.Fears for Kerry jobs in pay dispute
Services Industrial Professional and Technical Union (SIPTU) held a secret ballot of its members at Liebherr Container Cranes in Killarney yesterday, 14th January 2014.
SIPTU members voted to reject Labour Court proposals geared at resolving a long-term pay increase dispute with the Company dating back to 2009.
Liebherr Container Cranes Ltd., a member of the large family-owned German Company, Liebherr Group, was established in Killarney in 1958 and has been a significant direct and indirect employer in the area in recent years. The Company is one of the largest firms in Kerry and one of the largest of its kind in the country.
The German company has warned that its commitment to the plant in Killarney has been weakened in recent months as a result of the on-going pay issues and the industrial action which forced them to send work from Killarney to Germany.
Fears are now growing for jobs at the Company as Management admit to reviewing its operations in the region. Liebherr stated that a small number of employees have seriously compromised its future in Killarney.
Based on the details of Towards 2016 Review and Transitional Arrangement, an agreement drawn up by the Company, a 2.5% pay increase was due to be implemented for employees in January 2009.
The Company did not pay the expected increase and argued that payment would severely impact its competitiveness and limit its ability to preserve its headcount numbers in a time of economic hardship. The Company proposed to pay the increase due in three distinct phases beginning in 2012 in return for a number of concessions including cost-offsetting measures.
Union members and the Company were unable to resolve the dispute at local level and it became the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission.
Agreement was not reached at this stage and, on the 28th January 2011, the pay dispute was referred to the Labour Court.
A Labour Court hearing was scheduled for, and took place on, the 2nd May 2012.
The Labour Court considered the submissions of all parties and a decision was made that further engagement was required if the claim was to be resolved before the Court. The Court recommended that the discussions/negotiations were to be facilitated by the Labour Relations Commission.
As a result of the unresolved pay dispute, industrial action was served by SIPTU in November 2013. Workers at the plant implemented a ban on overtime and undertook a one-day work stoppage late in November. All industrial action was suspended on 28th November when members of the union accepted an invitation to attend a hearing of the Labour Court on 4th December 2013.
In December 2013, the Labour Court recommended that the firm award the disputed 2.5% increase backdated almost two full years to its workers. The Court provided a list of recommendations to both sides. Liebherr said that, while the industrial action and the pay award had increased its cost base, they accepted the recommendation.
SIPTU workers at the plant, however, voted on the 14th January 2014 to reject the Labour Court proposals. The union was said to be dissatisfied with the proposal and wanted the 2.5% wage increase to be implemented on an unconditional basis.
Worker dismissed at probationary period meeting awarded €10k
On 17th September 2013 a former employee of a coach hire company referred his case under Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 to the Labour Court and agreed to be bound by the Recommendations of the Court.
The case revolved around the alleged Unfair Dismissal of the claimant at his probationary meeting.
An employee with less than 12 months’ service cannot avail of the protections offered by the Unfair Dismissals Acts, however, as this particular employee did, employees with less than 12 months’ service can refer a claim under the Industrial Relations Act as the amount of service is irrelevant in these instances.
The employee claimed that he was made aware that he was being dismissed at the meeting but stated that no issues about his performance were raised at that time. The employee described how he was denied his right to appeal the decision as his employer either claimed to be “unavailable” or simply “failed to respond” to any correspondence relating to an appeal process.
A Labour Court hearing was scheduled for, and took place on, January 10th 2014.
The employer, who was notified of the hearing, did not attend and did not appoint any representation to attend on his/her behalf.
Given his opportunity to speak, the worker claimed that throughout the course of his probation, he was never told of any issues with his performance. He went on to describe how he was not afforded his right to query why he was dismissed and was not given any opportunity to appeal the decision made by his employers to terminate his employment at that time.
As there was no representation on the part of the employer the employee’s claims went uncontested.
With the evidence presented to it, the Court decided that the process used in deciding to dismiss the claimant fell short of the standards of fairness that a reasonable employer should exhibit.
The Court, satisfied with the evidence of the claimant, ruled that he be compensated in the amount of €10,000. This figure was in full and final settlement of all claims arising from this dismissal.
The determination in this case should encourage all employers to ensure that they follow Labour Court approved procedures with extreme care when dismissing an employee - even when doing so during a probationary period.
Employers should note from this case that all employees, including those who are dismissed during probation, are entitled to be afforded details of the reasons why they are being let go and should also be offered the right to appeal the decision to terminate.
As should be the case all employees, even employees on probation, are entitled to natural justice.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Why Companies are choosing to Outsource their HR
The number of cases annually referred to the Employment Appeals Tribunal increased three fold during the Irish economic recession and the average compensation awarded by the Tribunal in Unfair Dismissal cases rose from €11,476.00 to €18,047.85 between 2009 and 2011.
During this time of economic hardship Employers must pay even closer attention than ever before to their expenditure. Many organisations are forced to downsize and - in this era of increased Employee Litigation - making sure you follow appropriate procedures in redundancy or disciplinary scenarios, for example, is growing in importance.
It is at times like these that Companies need to concentrate on their Human Resource functions even more. Some elements of HR, however, can be both complicated and time consuming – an enormous burden on Employers. In recent years the focus has moved towards legal compliance (which can be a minefield with all of the pieces of Employment Legislation currently in operation) and administrative processes that can slow down the productivity of the firm.
For SMEs in particular, it makes a lot of business sense to outsource HR tasks as firms specialising in the field can improve efficiency dramatically. Outsourcing allows Companies to offload work that isn’t part of their core business. It also saves money. At a Company that doesn’t have the funds to hire specialists outsourcing can allow it to gain access to a vendor’s services when required as well as the expertise and wealth of experience that they have accumulated – all at an affordable price.
While SMEs don’t have the same number of Employees as larger corporations and multinationals they still require the same HR elements on a smaller scale. For instance, they still need to recruit staff, they still need to abide by the vast array of Employment Laws and still require Employment Documentation (Contracts of Employment etc.).
Although some Companies do it, most SMEs cannot justify spending a large portion of their annual budget setting up a HR department comprehensive enough to incorporate the abundance of skills required to achieve a smooth-functioning, compliant working environment. Consequently, more and more Companies are choosing to outsource operations like HR and are directing vital, scarce, finances and resources towards other core/revenue-generating areas of the business.
HR Companies deal with all features of Human Resources comprehensively. They have a base of specialist Employees who are trained and experienced in all areas of Employment Law – meaning they are fully equipped to deal with any Employee Relations issues that arise in the workplace. Engaging the services of HR professionals gives Employers access to a bank of relevant knowledge and experience. HR Companies are well prepared to support or advise SMEs without costing an arm and a leg. They keep up-to-date with all changes in Irish Employment Legislation and are able to offer better support and guidance than the client can attain in-house. Navigating Government regulations can be a draining activity for Employers, - it can be a time consuming and complicated process, however, it is what HR advisors are trained to do.
HR firms can do a lot more than you might think – not alone do they have a top-class portfolio of skills, knowledge and experience concentrated in this specific area, they can offer a range of services and support at an extremely affordable price. Some HR Companies provide comprehensive services for as little as €100 per month – Hiring a HR Employee, even on a part-time basis, would cost far in excess of this. Similarly, many Employers currently engage the services of Solicitors to prepare Contracts of Employment and other Employment Documentation – this can also be an extremely costly process.
HR Companies prepare Employment Documentation for their clients and on top of that are there to advise on all individual Employee related issues – discrimination claims, rest and annual leave entitlements, disciplinary and redundancy procedures, dismissals, grievances and much more. Lots of Companies operate outside of office hours and so some HR Companies even provide 24/7 advice lines for their clients meaning a client will never have an anxious wait for an answer. HR firms also provide support to existing HR departments within Companies - the level of service and associated costs are completely dependent on the needs of the individual Company.
HR firms are growing in popularity. In the past outsourcing was often a difficult process because of the issues distance can sometimes create. Thanks to the advances in technology, however, dedicated HR experts are only a couple of clicks or a phone call away – so Human Resource emergencies can be dealt with on the spot.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.
