People stuff

Nudging in practice

Nudge by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein is a book that explains how prompting people to make minor changes without telling them directly can have amazing results.

Thaler and Sunstein argue that their approach offers an alternative to both state mandated paths on the one hand and complete laissez-faire on the other and they call this Libertarian Paternalism. 
Overall the book does provide quite a few ideas for how we could achieve some beneficial behavioural changes without being too heavy-handed.

The UK Government created a Behavioural Insights Team (the nudge unit) which has since launched a number of nudging initiative onto the British public following this principle.

Some practical ways of making nudging work for your business:

Pic from market community.com

• If you offer a subsidised canteen or your have an outsourced provider, you can consider providing information about calorie content, links to popular fitness apps etc
• Run informal fitness competition amongst your staff (counting steps for example)
• Arrange the office in a way that encourages mobility and casual encounters (this will also aid flow of information and relationships)
• Offer good coffee (or tea) so staff can avoid long queues at Costa (or Starbucks etc. etc.)
• Provide water stations to improve consumption, hydration and well-being

People stuff

Pic from www.mentalhealthy.co.uk

Pay Attention to Whistleblowing

Usually employees cannot lodge a claim for unfair dismissal until they have been with their employer for a qualifying period of two years. In cases where there is a "protected disclosure"though (whistleblowing) employees can claim for automatic unfair dismissal as soon as they need to.

In the case of Chemistree v Gahir, the Employment Appeal Tribunal had to consider whether or not the claimant (employee) had suffered detriment due to the respondent’s (employer) alleged failure to act upon the disclosures immediately and whether or not the tribunal should have considered each disclosure separately as opposed to them all being rolled up together.

Ms Gahir, was an employee of Chemistree. Her role involved making sure that the pharmacy was compliant with statutory requirements and guidance. Her start date was 16th August 2010, and she was dismissed 18 days later on 3rd September 2010. It was claimed that Ms Gahir was dismissed on the grounds of ‘mutual unsuitability.’ In these 18 days, Ms Gahir raised 17 separate concerns via two emails relating to health and safety and failure to comply with legal obligations. These included statutory and regulatory requirements linked to the storage and dispensing of controlled medicines. These were later claimed to be protected disclosures (whistleblowing).

At Employment Tribunal, the tribunal held that the ‘principal,’ reason for Ms Gahir’s dismissal was that she had made a protected disclosure; it also held that Ms Gahir had suffered detriment as Chemistree had failed to quickly or adequately address her concerns. T

Pic from www.caerphilly.org.uk

Chemistree appealed to the EAT who concluded that Ms Gahir had not suffered detriment. The EAT upheld the claim for unfair dismissal but they found it difficult to see how she could have suffered such detriment between her dismissal and submission of her emails of complaint as she had been employed for such a short period of time. 

The EAT found that there had been no deliberate action or failure to act on behalf of the respondent AND concluded that the tribunal should originally have considered each disclosure separately and in detail taking a ‘systematic approach.’

There is no qualifying period of employment required to bring a claim of automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing ; it is recommended however that employers should investigate promptly and thoroughly as well as take specialist advice where concerns are raised regarding health and safety or legal obligations.

People stuff

Ill health and employee relations   

Pic from www.highlandohservices.co.uk 

An allegation of misconduct i.e. met with immediate sickness absence, what do you do?

1. Adjust do not delay - it is not true that employees can't be disciplined if they're off sick or don't show. Their absence may be because of a genuine illness or perhaps a plain refusal to face up to the issue. Either way, the disciplinary process doesn't have to come to a halt if the employee isn't there but you will need to consider the facts carefully and come to a reasonable decision on how to proceed. Complete as much of the process as you can in the employee's absence, for example conducting investigatory interviews with witnesses and collecting all relevant documentation.
2. Consider medical evidence - what do you need to know? If the employee is claiming to be sick, medical opinion is useful to confirm whether he or she is fit to attend the meeting (unfit for work might not mean unfit to meet) and what, if any, reasonable adjustments could be made to facilitate his or her attendance.
3. A resolution might help not hinder recovery -  stress of the situation itself may be behind the absence, in which case, it's in everyone's interest to get a resolution speedily. You might want to offer to hold the meeting closer to or at the employee's home, or accept a written representation.
4. A decision may be reached in absentia but need to explain and justify - in the continuing absence of an employee, you may conclude that a decision will be made on all the evidence available; in this case you should let the employee know.

Pic www.practiceplan.co.uk

In any event be flexible and reasonable and give the employee every opportunity to participate in the process and give his/her representation (either in person or in writing) before making a decision.

               

People stuff 

Is Back pain all in the brain? 

Pic from valleysportsandspine.com

The Office for National Statistics found that , in 2013, more working days were lost to musculoskeletal problems such as back and neck pain than anything else.

Once upon a time if you suffered from back pain, you were likely to be referred by your GP to see a physiotherapist, some painkillers and told to rest.

The approach now seems to be a more holistic one starting from the recognition that psychosocial factors play an important part and so does dealing with people's perception of pain.

Many Employee Assistance Programmes (EAPs) offer help on the phone first, which may involve asking questions about work environment, around anxiety and depression, working out more cost-efficient for employers because they do not necessarily involve a string of medical appointments .

A cognitive behavioural approach really works for people who experience pain linked with psychosocial factors and helps them manage their pain and feel in control.

Some stats  from the report:

2013 = 131 millions working days lost due to sickness absence;
This is equivalent to 4.4 days per employee;
31 millions working days were lost due to musculoskeletal problems;
27 millions working days lost due to coughs and cold;
15 millions working days lost due to stress, anxiety and depression.

Food for thought, non?

People stuff

It is all in your head...

Pic fromstudy.com

Figures from the Office for National Statistics shows that sickness absence caused by stress, anxiety and/or depression has dramatically increased from 11.8 million days in 2010 to 15.2 million days in 2013.

With mental ill health costing the UK economy an estimated £70 billions each year it is time that employers really get serious about dealing with this issue.

Pic from richmindrichlife.co.uk

It’s a myth to think that people with mental health problems can’t work,  they can and do work, and with the right knowledge and skills,  employers can support employees to stay well ultimately saving you money and maintaining productivity.

It also makes good business sense to support employees who are struggling with mental health problems. Research shows that if supported, they will become more loyal, engaged and motivated, which can only be good for business.

Unless the culture of silence stops though, the problem will unfortunately continue; remember mental illness is more common that you might think....

Pic from www.hrsolutions-uk.com

People stuff



Equal Pay case that could affect many...

An equal pay case involving 400 female employees of supermarket ASDA could bring about a number of similar claims elsewhere in the private sector.

The case concerns equal pay claims from about 7,000 current and former hourly paid store colleagues, of which approximately 30% are male. The women, who work as checkout staff and shelf stackers, claim that the (predominantly male) workers in Asda’s distribution depots are doing work of equal value to them, and yet are being paid substantially more. Counsel for Asda argued that the case could have an “enormous effect” on the retail trade and given the importance and the complexity, he argued that the High Court would deal with the case better than the Employment Tribunal.

Pic from www.wearethecity.com

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision that the Tribunal did not have power to impose a stay for the purpose of forcing the Claimants to transfer the claim to the High Court. Although the Equality Act gives the High Court power to transfer an equal pay claim to the Tribunal, the Tribunal has no equivalent power to transfer a claim to the High Court. 

Pic from www.employeebenefits.co.uk

The Claimants (the 400 women) had a clear statutory right to choose the appropriate forum in which to bring their claim.

The Asda equal pay litigation can now proceed in the Employment Tribunal, following the decision by the Court of Appeal handed down on 22 June 2016 (Asda Stores Ltd v Brierley & Ors).

Victory at Employment Tribunal could cost ASDA six years' worth of wages disparities and put other retailers running their own distribution centres at risk. 

This could also affect any sector that has predominantly female groups of employees doing work which could potentially be rated as equal in value to the work done by predominantly male groups of employees. If this is the case in your organisation, it is worthwhile reviewing pay practices now and have a clear plan to address disparities rather than be forced to do so later... Be warned.

People stuff

Pic from www.momsxyz.com

Are managers scared of pregnancy?

Many managers don't "get" pregnancy, they are afraid to engage with pregnant employees because they are not sure what "employment law"minefield they are stepping into.

Not everything is rocket science and more often than not, is the small things that matter most.

Pic from www.wikihow.com

A good relationship between a pregnant employee and her line manager is essential to the successful reintegration of the employee following maternity leave. 
Training line managers to adopt appropriate management techniques so they can have the right conversations , understand the potential barriers to retention and the appropriate ways of dealing with the circumstances can improve the experience of pregnant employees and new mothers and encourage them to return to work following maternity leave.

Good practice towards all parents increase the likelihood of achieving a gender-diverse workforce. 

Pic from www.maternityleavecoach.com

With the advent of shared parental leave it will be more and more about being a parent and less about just being a mum; this will also require a review of flexible working practices.
For more information on flexible working and gender balance check out my previous blogs.



People stuff



The importance of reasonable adjustment : Meseret Kumulchew v Starbucks 

Pic from www.personneltoday.com

Starbucks has lost a disability discrimination case after it wrongly accused a dyslexic employee of falsifying documents when she had simply misread numbers she was responsible for recording. This case is a useful reminder of the importance of making reasonable adjustments when an employer is aware of an employee’s disability. Once an individual has informed their employer that they are suffering from any recognised medical condition or symptoms which could afford them disabled status, the employer should take steps to inform themselves of the nature of the condition and how this may affect the employee in the workplace.

Pic from www.cloisters.com

In Meseret Kumulchew v Starbucks , the employee was a supervisor at a branch of Starbucks and was responsible for taking the temperature of fridges and water at specific times and entering the results in a duty roster. During a disciplinary hearing, she was accused of falsifying the documents after erroneously entering incorrect information; she was also asked to provide a "certificate" to prove her dyslexia.

The employee was then given fewer duties and was informed she would need to retrain. This left her feeling suicidal. 

Ms Kumulchew brought a claim against Starbucks at Tribunal alleging disability discrimination saying that she had always disclosed to her employer she was dyslexic and suffered with problems at work such as difficulties with reading, writing.

Pic from www.ukconstructionmedia.co.uk

The Tribunal found Starbucks had failed to make reasonable adjustments for the disability and had therefore discriminated against her because of the effects of her dyslexia and her ability to carry out her day to day duties at work. Instead of finding ways to support and assist her in fulfilling her duties, Starbucks accused her of falsifying records and treated her unfavourably.

The Tribunal also said Ms Kumulchew had been victimised and there appeared to be little or no knowledge or understanding of equality issues from Starbuck. Some proper investigation and advice might have highlighted how the role could have been adjusted; it was its duty to take such steps as it is reasonable to take to avoid the disadvantage.

Pic from lizmcgettinganfuturelibraries.wordpress.com

Dyslexia generally presents difficulties with words and numbers and sufferers need to be shown how to do tasks visually. 

Whether dyslexia is deemed to be a disability under the Equality Act 2010 definition will be dependent upon the severity of the individual’s condition. If it has “substantial” affects on his/her ability to carry out normal day-day activities then it will likely be a disability. If not, then it will likely not be. 

This is an area where each case will need to be reviewed on its own facts. Please contact British Dyslexia Association for more information and/or advice on Dyslexia.

People stuff

Long-term sickness and disability

According to HSE 27.3 million working days were lost in 2014/15 due to absence with stress depression or anxiety counting for 9.9 millions days, musculoskelatal discords 9.5 millions days.
The average days lost per case for stress were 23 days and for musculoskelatal 17 days with average level of employee absence rose slightly from 6.6. days in 2014 to 6.9 in 2015. In this current economic climate this represents a real cost and impairment to businesses especially SMEs.

If employers move to implement / invoke capability / ill health formal procedures (either absence management policy or disciplinary policy) more quickly than they would otherwise under the disability provisions of the Equality Act 2010 and the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) which may ultimately lead to dismissal on grounds of medical capability or ill health, they should consider at that point whether the employee is disabled i.e. whether they have “a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day to day activities”. 

Long-term absence through ill health is a potentially fair reason for dismissal under the provisions of section 98(3)(a) of the ERA. This relates to the employee’s capability to do the work they were employed to do. 

For the procedure to be fair this will require regular documented discussions with the employee ; a thorough investigation of the up-to-date medical condition and prognosis and the employee needs to also understand at what point dismissal may be an option. 

These discussions should also include a look at what steps the employer could take to get the employee back to work including any adjustments that may be necessary; and, where the employee is not in a position to return to their substantive position, thinking about alternative jobs. 

There is a duty on employers to make reasonable adjustments :

• to premises  or working practices
• to help disabled job applicants or employees
• allocate some duties to another person
• transfer to fill an existing vacancy
• after hours or place of work
• absence for rehabilitation, assessment or treatment
• modify procedures for assessment or testing
• provide supervisor or other support
• disability leave
• support worker/supported employment scheme
• adjust redundancy selection criteria
• modify performance-related pay 

If the employer is responsible for the employee’s ill health, it may be necessary to “go the extra mile” in terms of finding alternative employment for them, or putting up with a longer period of absence than might otherwise be reasonable.

When a disabled employee is absent because they can no longer continue in their substantive position through ill health or injury, employers should consider redeployment as an alternative to dismissal if they are fit to work in some capacity. 

Although this will ultimately depend on whether there are vacant positions the leading case in this type of situations remains that of Archibald -v- Fife Council in which the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) determined that, in certain redeployment circumstances, disabled employees may be treated more favourably than non-disabled employees, specifically that the duty to make adjustment is triggered when it becomes apparent that the employee can no longer satisfy the requirements of their job description and this entails a degree of positive discrimination. 

In cases of long-term absence, redeployment will arise where the employee is fit to work but not in their substantive role.

While it is generally the case that employers are not required to create a post where one does not exist, this may be a reasonable adjustment when there has been a complete reorganisation or restructure, where legislation does not preclude creating a new post in substitution for an existing vacant post. 

In practice these situations are likely to be limited, nevertheless food for thought.

These matters  of law need to be applied carefully and therefore, if you find yourself in this type of situations, you need to seek qualified advice. Although long term absence or absence in general can be a real disruption to the business and a financial burden,  please do remember to deal with employees with sensitivity, compassion and understanding. It is not easy for them either...

People stuff

Landmark cases : Thompson v London Central Bus Company

In the case of Thompson v London Central Bus Company Ltd, the question of associative discrimination in relation to victimisation was considered. 

Mr Thompson was a bus driver and he was disciplined for giving another employee his high-vis vest.  He was already subject to a final written warning and was dismissed as a result of this disciplinary offence.  He appealed the decision to dismiss and was successful.  He ended up changing his stance by apologising and admitting he was in the wrong, which led to his employer instead revising its decision to 21 days unpaid suspension and a final written warning. He consequently dropped the unfair dismissal and notice pay claims, but pursued his claim for victimisation relating to the disciplinary action taken against him. This was on the basis that a protected act had been done by someone with whom Mr Thompson was associated (in the mind of management) and he alleged the disciplinary action against him was as a result.

Protected acts are, for example, acts such as making a discrimination claim, complaining about harassment or giving witness evidence regarding an employee’s discrimination complaint. 
In this case, Mr Thompson had overheard a conversation involving colleagues (the conversation being the protected act), where it had been stated that certain employees had previously been deliberately targeted for opposing alleged wrongdoing by former management. He belonged to the same Trade Union as the employee who had carried out the protected act. 

The employment judge at a preliminary hearing considered the causal connection between the protected acts and the detriment complained of.  At this hearing, the claim was struck out as the employment judge was satisfied that the link between the Claimant (Mr Thompson) and the other employees (who did the protected act) was so tenuous that the Claimant was not afforded the protection.  The employment judge concluded that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. 

The Employment Appeal Tribunal concluded instead that the employment tribunal was wrong to strike out the claim holding that the employment judge was wrong in seeking a particular form or degree of association for the purpose of associative victimisation.  Instead, the EAT confirmed that ‘what matters is whether the treatment of the Claimant was by reason of his association with another who made protected acts’.  This would be a question of fact for an employment tribunal. 

Following this case there is further evidence that ‘associative discrimination’ may not be limited to direct discrimination and harassment and employers will now need to be wary that the same principle applies in cases of victimisation (where an employee is victimised, the employee can claim even when the protected act is carried out by another person, provided that they are victimised because of that act and there is no requirement for there to be a special relationship in existence between the person who is victimised and the person who carries out the protected act).

People stuff

Pic from everydaypowerblog.com

Dealing with people at work: the unsung hero

You can probably all recognise this employee type: plenty of ability but unwillingness to speak up, shy and retiring, absolutely brilliant employee who lets others talk and says nothing even when they have great suggestions. If they'd just open up and say something....

This is where organisations waste talent and all the effort they put into development: it is important to address this problem because the opportunity costs.

These employees need to be moved one step at the time, they aren't always resilient so it is important to show you are interested in them so they have a good experience of sharing their ideas.

"Nudge" them, for example instead of asking for direct input in front of others, set a challenge to present their ideas in other format. This takes compassion and thoughtfulness which often is scarce in most business.

People stuff

Dealing with people at work: 
the "I have been here for ages, can't really go anywhere else and I am not moving" type

Sometime people have been in an organisation
for so long that they just can't go anywhere else.
They are often unhappy with the company and want it to go back the way it was, they stuck perhaps because of their pension, or they waited too long in their job to move on that they do not appeal to the external market.

Sometime, even worse, they seem to haves lots of technical, organisational knowledge that they seem to hold the company to ransom and you might be apprehensive to do anything that risks losing that knowledge.

These individuals  can be incredibly valuable with great strengths but they need help understanding that the world around them has changed and they need to adapt.

It is about reminding people that they have choices and they can always do things to make them happier; in this situation an honest open and upfront conversation would help

Pic from www.facilityexecutive.com

People stuff

Difficult people to manage at work: the Alpha Male

Alpha males have not disappeared although slightly out of fashion; this style of behaviour might be natural but so many organisation focus so much on rewarding competition and individual success rather than teamwork that people come in, look at successful people leading the company and see that this is what they need to do to get on.

Pic from www.howdesign.com

Letting alpha males flourish can seriously damage a company not just because it might create barriers to diversity but also because there needs to be a culture of learning, self-awareness and prospective of self in relation to the entire organisation.

The problem here might lie with the fact that alpha males tend to surround themselves with similar characters and without debate, different perspectives and approaches the team won't be able to achieve what they want to achieve.

The best way to deal with personality type is not to tackle them head on (they thrive on conflict) but to subtly dampen there excesses and harness their strengths by making sure they are part of a team populated by other styles.

Do you know any Alpha Males in your organisation, maybe intimately? ;-)

People stuff

Kim Kardashian is working for me

How can you handle a narcissist personality working for you?

Picture from www.rolingstone.com

To the outside world, they are the very embodiment of confidence, feel they have been there, done that, got the T-shirt and they don't need any development.
Behind the facade they are unlikely to be as good as they think, with their self-awareness inversely proportionate to their self-confidence.

When things go wrong, of course it is not their fault, it is a plot against them.

Narcissists operate, from a neuroscientific level, from the "primitive" part of their brain and they are fixated on their own survival  rather than others.

Unfortunately it is not easy or quick to deal with, 360 degree feedback can be helpful but it can take a long time with a multiple "attack" from different fronts, a few people that can coach/mentor and re-iterate how things are in your own company.

What difficult personality are you dealing with at work?

People stuff

Whistleblowing - Landmark cases

In Cherserton v Nurmohamed, Mr Nurmohamed made disclosure about alleged manipulation of the firm's accouts and claimed that, by deliberately overstating costs and liabilities for its London office the firm was reducing managers' commission, including his own.

A tribunal found that he had been automatically unfairly dismissed (when the whistleblowing provisions were amended in 2013, one of the changes was that the disclosure had to be "in the public interest"). In considering whether the public interest test was fulfilled, the Employment Tribunal considered what constitutes 'the public'. It accepted that a group of 100 people sufficed and that 'public' can mean a section of the public rather than the entirety.

Pic from www.darutahqiq.com

Following an appeal by Chestertons, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the tribunal decision and went on to emphasise that it is the worker’s reasonable belief that is important rather than whether the allegation actually does in fact involve an issue of public interest. 

The EAT did not view it as a way to a personal grievance about a private contractual matter because Mr Nurmohamed, although personally affected, believed that the disclosure was important for the whole pool of managers


In Underwood v Wincanton plc. , Underwood brought claims of automatic unfair dismissal and detriment for having made protected disclosures.
The disclosures on which he relied was a letter which complained of unfair allocation of overtime. Wincanton argued that, at most, the letter expressed a collective grievance  about a contractual matter.

The Employment Tribunal struck out the claim finding that a complaint, concerning only a group of workers about terms of their contracts, could not meet the public interest test. Overturning the Employment Tribunal's decision the EAT recognised that the Employment Tribunal's judgment had been given before any real guidance as to the meaning of "public interest" and before its decision in Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed had been delivered. That case concerned an employee making a disclosure about contractual matters (commission payments) where 100 senior managers were affected. 

The EAT found that provided a section of the public, rather than simply the individual, was concerned, this was sufficient to meet the test and that the dispute between an employer and a group of employees relating to their terms and conditions of employment was capable of being a protected disclosure. The issues of health and safety meant this case from an EAT prospective was within the scope of problem the legislation was intended to address. 

This did require an interpretation of the word “public” to mean a relatively small number of employees. Employers should be aware that, following this case, employees may bring claims on the basis of allegations about their own contracts if there is a health and safety or other public interest dimension to the claim.  If an employee can show that they were dismissed because of a protected disclosure, they do not need to have the usual two years’ service to bring a claim of unfair dismissal, the dismissal will be automatically unfair and there is no cap on the compensation that can be awarded. Employers may also need to consider the drafting of their whistleblowing policies.

People stuff

Help: a snake is working for me


We all know that person: amenable to your face but actively works to thwart you behind your back and sometime you don't realise until it is far too late and the damage has been done.

In a work environment this can be highly corrosive.

Pic efdreams.com

It is easy to rationalise and say that this person has a level of insecurity about their own skills and abilities and it is easier for them to bring everybody down rather than elevate themselves: in practice, what can you do?

This is one of those difficult conversations to have and one of the few that should be had in public: be firm, polite, non-confrontational, professional but highlight the fact you are surprised that there has been a change from your previous discussion/s and ask why and what has changed.

This tactic is about calling out that you know the behaviour that is going on and making their power ( being quietly subversive) less real.

People stuff

Key Changes to Immigration rules  - Tier 2 

On 25 February 2015, the Secretary of State issued a Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules, which highlighted a number of changes,  most of which came into force on 6 April 2015.

The Tier 2 ‘cooling off’ period was in place to prevent a migrant who was in the UK under Tier 2 within the previous 12 month period being granted leave under Tier 2 again. From 6 April 2015 onwards, the 12 month ‘cooling off period’ where the migrant is assigned a Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS) for three months or less was waived for Tier 2 visas granted for a period of 3 month or less. This enabled employers to sponsor interns and then bring them back to the UK for a permanent job within a one year Period improving flexibility.

With respect to Tier 2 Intra Company Transfer migrants, the qualifying 12 month’s prior employment can now include time spent lawfully employed by a group company in the UK as well as overseas.

The minimum salary thresholds as set out in the Codes of Practice (COP) have increased by 1.2% and the revised salary thresholds will apply from 6 April 2016.

The shortage occupation list has been updated with additional criteria.

The visitor visa regime has been simplified narrowing down the previous 15 routes to 4 routes and business visitors will fall within the visitor (standards) route, also accommodating tourists.

The Home Office is tightening up the Sponsorship Licence regime with additional questions and checks when applying; with current refusal rate sitting at 1 in 3 with a 6 months cooling period for re-application.

The "genuiness" test has been applied more stringently where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the job does not genuinely exist or has been exaggerated to meet the Tier 2 skills threshold.
The Labour Market Test has been applied strictly and can be assessed at the sponsorship licence, via application Restrictive Certificate of Sponsorship stage.
Immigration officers have been told to conduct more compliance checks and visits.

Changes to Tier 2 April 2016 

The changes made to this route focus on the monthly allocation system of restricted Certificates of Sponsorship (CoS):

• The government has decided not to increase the 20,700 annual allocation of available restricted CoS for the year ending April 2017
• The Home Office has revised the monthly quota of restricted CoS available for allocation in order to better reflect the seasonal demand for places, for example, be a high number of restricted CoS available to UK sponsors during the busier summer months and a lower quota during the winter months.
• The government will not be increasing the salary requirements for this visa category in April. 
• The minimum salary threshold for those applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain on a Tier 2 visa will increase to £35,000.
• The Home Office has stated that the Points-based System (PBS) calculator cannot be used in support of UK immigration applications as of 6 April 2016. Currently, the PBS calculator helps to identify a person’s eligibility to work or study in the UK by looking at the level of their international qualifications. From 6 April this year onwards, however, UK immigration customers will be required to use and pay for a similar service provided by UK NARIC instead. (Visas and immigration)

People stuff

Social Media can get you into trouble

Ok, you set up your social media account ( Facebook, Twitter and so on..) separate from your work and you do not identify yourself as working in a particular company. You have a rant or a few which of course all people you follow and follow you can see. People are offended and you think, so what? I am outside work and I can say what I like....

Well, think again...

In Game Retail Ltd. v Laws Mr Laws was employed by Game in a role which had responsibility for 100 of its stores. Mr Laws had a personal Twitter account, which was followed by a number of Game's stores across the country. He posted a number of tweets that were considered potentially offensive, including about towns he travelled to. 

An employment tribunal found that Mr Laws had been unfairly dismissed on the basis that the decision to dismiss fell outside the band of reasonable responses. Specifically, his tweets were posted for private use and the Company's disciplinary policy did not clearly state that inappropriate personal social media use may lead to dismissal. 

The Employment Appeal Tribunal disagreed with the tribunal's conclusion. It held that the tribunal had not properly taken into account that Mr Laws had not put restrictions on his privacy settings/ Game's concerns that Mr Laws' tweets would be seen by the Game stores that followed his feed/ or his knowledge that stores and potentially customers could see his tweets. The EAT also held that the offensive tweets did not need to relate to Game or to have identified himself as an employee. The tribunal should have focussed on whether the tweets were offensive and whether other staff or customers might have read them. 

The EAT recognised Mr Laws' right to freedom of expression although this was to be balanced with Game's desire to remove or reduce reputational risk from the social media use of its employees. Further, there was no requirement for Game to show that the tweets had actually caused offence, only that Game was able to reach the conclusion that they may have. 

The EAT reiterated that the correct approach was for a tribunal to apply the range of reasonable responses test, as with all unfair dismissal cases. It then remitted the case to a different employment tribunal to decide the case. 

If you are an employer, please do ensure you have an appropriate Social Media policy which covers this type of eventuality; if you are an employee please do remember that what you say or do can come back to harm you.

People stuff

Office kitchen rules

Shared food areas seem to turn some work environments into battlegrounds.
The dirty plates and cups start to pile up and hand in hand so do the excuses: "I am too busy", " It wasn't me", "I can't work the dishwasher"...

The more staff see other leaving dirty dishes, especially if their manager does it, the more they feel "justified" to do it too.

I know all of this sounds petty and not important but don't forget every employer has the primary duty of care to ensure the health and safety of workers and unkept premises can present hazards like slips, trips and falls, burns and food hygiene issues when using unclean utensils and crockery.

A good induction when employees start their job should include/cover basic office rules, health safety and legal obligations.

Don't write passive aggressive notes but a note aimed at responsible people with manners that were temporarily forgotten.

What else could you do?

Active monitoring
Cleaning rotas
Using own cutlery
Reward system

People stuff

Tackling team's negativity and resistance to change

We are currently going through a period of change and there are some employees who do not appear to want to embrace anything new or different and there seems to be some peer pressure going on, dare I say bullying. What can I do?

Well, to start with be visible and go out and about to find out what is really happening, "walk the floor".

You can also set up one to one with employees or group talks to discuss and explain what kind of culture / behaviour is and is not acceptable in your company and set expectations that are understood by all (try to explain what does this mean in practice, concepts could mean different things to different people).

In regards to change, what people fear is uncertainty and what this will mean to them. Be clear, open and transparent as far as it reasonable practicable, and elaborate how change will affect them.
If there are no implications for their job (e.g. no job losses or reductions of hours/premiums) than say so and remove this barrier.