British Bankers’ Bonuses

British Bankers’ Bonuses – could they be paid differently? In days gone by employers paid their employees in company money for use only in the company store. If the contracts between banks and their executives do not mention restrictions, and do not prevent the introduction of any restrictions, then how about applying the restriction that bonuses can only be spent in England? If this were the case, at least we would get a return on the payment.

OK, we all know that the above is said with tongue in cheek due to our feelings that their bonuses are not justified but, if we cannot stop them being legally paid, at least let’s see if Britain can benefit in some way. If the bonuses were spent in Britain at least the economy would benefit, giving us some return on the money they receive. An employer recently rang for advice having just paid an employee his Christmas bonus in advance; the employee had requested it to buy presents, and subsequently did not turn up for work. He had tried to contact the employee by phone, only to be told he would not be coming back as he had started a new job the previous Monday.

In this time of recession all employers are particularly upset when they feel their kindness has been taken advantage of. I would advise every employer to take a few minutes out and review their contracts of employment to see that they are fair, not only to the employee but to the business as well. Maybe bonuses earned should have certain restrictions upon them, for example that they are paid 3 months in arrears and then only if the employee is still working for the company; this should stop an unscrupulous employee being able to take the money and run.

Holiday and Holiday Year

Autumn’s here, the nights are drawing in and people are beginning to think of Christmas. To many employers 31 December is the end of their holiday year, which adds to the stress of running the business. Let us look at some potential situations.

Employees who may be short of money still ask their employer to pay them their holiday money and they will work through. This is of course no longer legal under the Working Time Directive, but many employers do pay up and gamble they will not be caught or prosecuted.

Employees may ask for their unused holiday to be carried forward into the next holiday year. It is legal to carry forward any days over four weeks (20 days for a person working a 5 day week) but this is only by agreement, and the employer must be very careful not to set a precedent or be accused of favouring one employee over another – I prefer not to carry forward except in exceptional circumstances.

A recent Tribunal case has made clear that it is legal for an employer to require an employee to take outstanding holiday at a specific time providing the employer gives sufficient notice, eg if you need the employee to take the 3 days between Christmas and New Year then you should give 6 working days notice; to be safe I would suggest no later than 14 December. However this right for employers can be even more beneficial if used carefully. Does your business have any high or low periods between now and the end of the year? If so why not require any outstanding holiday to be taken on the low days? This secures your staff for the days you require them most and maximizes your potential income.

If you need more assistance on this matter do contact me on 01455 613743 for non-clients; if you are a client then call the HR4UK.com advisors on 01455 444222.

An Unusual Phone Call From ACAS

I have been away from my desk for a time, both on holiday and business, and hence have not added to my Blog; it is nice to be back but the story I have to add is concerning.

One of our clients has recently telephoned advising he received a call from ACAS - a very unusual call. The conciliator said they had been approached by an ex-employee of the company, someone they had recently dismissed for gross misconduct. The conciliator said he was now thinking of taking the company to Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal. The conciliator wanted to know how much the employer would offer for the employee to not submit a claim.
The employer was horrified and frankly so was I. This sounded like blackmail.
I rang the conciliator who explained that this was now one of the roles ACAS was required to carry out, the objective being to prevent Tribunal claims and reduce costs to the tax payer.
This may reduce the cost to the tax payer but to me it appears to be encouraging ridiculous claims from employees. Soon every employee will think it is their right to receive a pay-off even if they have been dismissed quite fairly. This culture is not good for the morals of the community - this is my view.
To encourage reason and common sense we need to bring some balance into Tribunal proceedings. The law allows Tribunal judges to award costs against an employee when it is an obviously ridiculous claim, and yet they very rarely use this power. Until they do the balance will remain heavily in favour of the employee and as long as that is the case employees will continue to try and use the system to make money.

I am voting against the new ACAS conciliation service - how many of you agree?

The Importance of Appeal & Grievance Procedures

I decided a long time ago that blogging for the sake of it was not for Peter Abraham. The fact that I am writing this when on holiday, with the HR4UK.com staff being left to hold the fort, says there must be something important to add to the record.

When the law changed on 06 April 2009 many employers sighed with relief. The sighs are now even louder as the three - month transition period has expired - "maybe now we can see some sense in employment law", they say. I fear not. Why?

Employers are now expected to act reasonably. What is reasonable to one person is not to another. I therefore see less Tribunal claims on breaches of the law or procedure and more on whether the employer has acted reasonably. This is an even bigger charter for employees to submit a claim and therefore threatening the employer with heavy costs in both time and money. I believe the temptation for an employer to settle a claim has been increased by the change, unless the employer is completely sure of their grounds. Therefore the benefits of really excellent appeal and grievance procedures have been enhanced still further.

How long will it be before employers catch on to this fact? A grievance settled by the shake of a hand used to be relied upon, now all important transactions are committed to paper or an electronic record. Many agreements have clauses stating how a dispute or breakdown of the agreement will be handled to avoid arguments in court.

Employers should, in my opinion, look to an appeal and grievance procedure of similar standing in an employment contract and these - if well written - are worth their weight in gold.

Employment Tribunals - Catching Up

So much has happened in the last week or so, I have not had time to keep you informed – I will add an entry or two now to bring you up to date.

I was delighted when an employer told me he had been to Employment Tribunal and, without professional assistance, had won. Naturally I asked him what had happened. An employee had been on long term sick and he had sent their P45 with a letter saying “when you have recovered you will be welcome back”. The employee had taken it as dismissal and took him to Employment Tribunal. The employer argued that it was not – he had made it quite clear that, as soon as she was fit to work, she could return; the P45 helped her claim maximum benefits.

On the back of a judgement case in the autumn of 2008, he won and naturally was delighted. However I was not so sure it was the success he had thought it. He still has the employee on his books rather than terminating her employment; this means she is entitled to 28 days paid holiday in a year. If he had to make redundancies, she would be in line for redundancy pay as well as notice pay.

It really is a pity that, in 1978 when the Government introduced Tribunals, their idea of an individual being able to handle these matters themselves has not worked as they wished. It has developed into another court of the land where professional help is now almost essential.