A joint report has been published by the House of Commons Petitions Committee and the Women and Equalities Committee called High heels and workplace dress codes.

A petition was signed by more than 150,000 people requesting it to be made illegal for employers to require female staff to wear high heels whilst at work.

The report commented that certain dress code requirements make some female workers feel uncomfortable and sexualised by their employer, and that requiring female workers to wear high heels is damaging not only to their health, but also their wellbeing.

The report makes recommendations in the following three areas:

• That the government should review this area of the law;
• That more effective remedies should be available against employers who breach the law (including injunctions against potentially discriminatory dress codes); and
• That detailed guidance and awareness campaigns targeted at employers and workers should be developed.

The existing ACAS guidance on dress codes was criticised in evidence, and the report recommends that the government work with ACAS to publish updated guidance by July 2017.

Should you require assistance with drafting or updating your company’s dress code policy please call Hannah Belton at our Carmarthen office on 01267 493130. 

The government has published its response to the Women and Equalities Committee’s report calling for better pregnancy and maternity protection.

The majority of the Committee’s recommendations have not been adopted by the government, as it considers that on the whole, women’s rights are adequately protected by existing law.

Although the majority of the Committee’s recommendations were rejected, a specific commitment was made to consider strengthening women’s rights in relation to pregnancy, maternity and redundancy.

The government will continue to work closely with agencies that provide information regarding employees’ rights, and will commission further research on pregnancy and maternity discrimination, to be concluded by 2020.

 

Two brothers have each been jailed for exploitation under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and fraud offences and conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation under the Fraud Act 2006.

 

The two brothers arranged for vulnerable people to travel to the UK before stealing the majority of their wages. The brothers identified targets that were unemployed or in need of money with the help of others and offered travel, work and accommodation. Through an agency, the victims were given warehouse work at Sports Direct.

 

The brothers removed the victims travel documents and then assisted the victims to open bank accounts. The victims bank cards were then seized by the brothers and they were given only £90 of their earnings of approximately £265 a week, the difference being kept by the brothers. The brothers controlled the victims by taking control of their finances and communications, and by sometimes threatening violence.

 

The two brothers were each sentenced to six years for the exploitation and two and a half years for the fraud. A charge of conspiracy to require a person to perform forced labour was left to lie on the file.

 

For further information regarding the Modern Slavery Act, MLR are running a series of workshops covering this topic.  To view our events and to book please click here https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/o/morgan-laroche-solicitors-12683057251

Most people who work in an office have to develop close working relationships with their colleagues, not least because they spend a substantial part of their lives in their close company.

According to recent research at least one in three people has had a romantic liaison with a colleague and 28 per cent of British working women say they have had sex in the workplace.

Secret trysts in the boardroom and chance encounters in the lift can bring misery as well as intrigue to the working day.  So what should an employer be mindful of?

Romance in the workplace policy

Consider an employee policy on romantic or dating relationships in the workplace setting out the rules surrounding fraternization in the office.

Training

Training is important especially for people in positions of seniority.  Training should also cover the risks of the repercussions from a relationship breakdown and the perception of bias.

Key points

In order to minimise the risks linked to office romances, employers should:

• Ensure staff, particularly more senior staff, notify HR of any personal relationships at work;
• This may lead to adjusting reporting lines and management structures to avoid any perception of bias;
• Remove members of staff who are engaged in relationships with colleagues from any management decisions involving their partners;
• Remind staff of your harassment policies in case things go wrong and a person starts receiving unwanted attention from a spurned lover;
• Remind staff about your IT policies – you don’t want staff spending all day emailing each other inappropriate material; and
• Take disciplinary action if needed – cloakroom exploits could also be considered as a failure by the employees to dedicate their working time to the interests of the organisation.

Contractual clauses forbidding office relationships are unlikely to work and could even create the possibility that highly valued employees have to be dismissed for falling in love.

In this case a tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that a dismissal was fair even though the employer relied on previous warnings.

Mr Stratford started work for Auto Trail VR Ltd (Auto Trail). He had a poor disciplinary record, the last two in a list of 17 items were a nine-month warning for failing to make contact while off sick in December 2012 and a three-month warning for using company machinery and time to prepare materials for personal purposes in January 2014. There were no live warnings on Mr Stratford’s file at the time of the events that led to his dismissal.

On 15 October 2014, Mr Stratford was seen with his mobile phone in his hand on the shop floor. This was “strictly prohibited”. Following a disciplinary hearing, the decision was made to dismiss Mr Stratford with 12 weeks’ pay in lieu of notice for the following reasons:

• Despite Mr Stratford being aware of the correct procedure regarding emergency contact through the switchboard and despite there being no reason for him to have had his phone on the factory floor, there had been unfortunate circumstances. Taking these into account the offence was not one of gross misconduct and would attract a final written warning.
• However, in addition to many informal conversations, this was the eighteenth time that Mr Stratford’s behaviour had been the subject of formal action. While Mr Stratford had asked for one more chance, stating that he loved his job, was highly skilled and passed on his skills to new employees, there was no reason to believe that there would not be a similar conversation in the near future. While Mr Stratford’s actions may not always be intentional, he did not understand their consequences and it was not believed that this would change.

After his internal appeal was unsuccessful, Mr Stratford claimed unfair dismissal. The tribunal rejected the claim. An employment judge held that Mr Stratford had been dismissed for conduct consisting of his disciplinary history.

The employment judge considered the normal employment practice that once a warning had expired that the slate should be wiped clean but also balanced that against Auto Trail’s decision that enough was enough. The Tribunal decided that the dismissal was fair.

Mr Stratford appealed and this was dismissed.

The case highlights the need for carefully drafted disciplinary policies which anticipate dealing with “repeat offenders” and to exercise care when giving warnings.

HMRC officials have released ten of the most bizarre responses provided by employers when questioned on their reasons for failing to pay the national minimum wage (NMW). Excuses for not paying staff the minimum wage included only wanting to pay staff when there were customers to serve and believing it was acceptable to underpay workers until they had “proved” themselves. It was also suggested that it was permissible to pay foreign workers less than the NMW since they didn’t have the right to it and that someone who made the tea and swept the floor didn’t deserve it.

Click here to read more.

Dentists have called for an end to the “workplace cake culture”, saying the sharing of sweets and cakes leads to obesity and poor oral health. The Royal College of Surgeons, has called for a culture change at work where, instead of encouraging unhealthy snacks such as cakes, sweets and biscuits, the consumption of healthy alternatives is promoted.

To read more about their advice please click here.

In December 2016, nearly 100 people were arrested in nail bars on suspicion of working illegally and breaching immigration laws. Authorities raided 280 nail bars nationally as part of Operation Magnify, a government operation targeting “risk” industries. The majority of those arrested were Vietnamese nationals. Written warnings were also delivered to 68 businesses threatening to fine the employers £20,000 per illegal worker if they had failed to carry out appropriate right-to-work document checks.

A Kent-based gangmaster couple have agreed to a landmark settlement worth more than £1m in compensation and legal costs for a group of migrants who were trafficked to work on farms producing eggs for high street brands. 

 

The couple agreed to the compensation deal after a high court ruling found that they had failed to pay the national minimum wage, had made unlawful deductions from wages and had failed to provide adequate facilities to wash, rest, eat and drink.

 

The employees alleged that they had been threatened and assaulted by Lithuanian supervisors who intimidated them with fighting dogs, and that they were housed in appalling conditions.

 

They said they were forced to work back-to-back eight-hour shifts for days at a time and were denied sleep and toilet breaks, forcing them to urinate in bottles and defecate in carrier bags in minibuses as they travelled between jobs on poultry farms around the UK.

 

The Lithuanians were sent to work in supply chains producing premium free range eggs for McDonald’s, Tesco, Asda, M&S and the Sainsbury’s Woodland brand.

 

The supermarket companies said at the time that they were shocked by the allegations and would take action to ensure their ethical standards were met fully.

The government has announced the following proposed increases to statutory benefit payments commencing in April:

• The weekly rate of statutory sick pay (SSP) will be £89.35 (up from £88.45).
• The weekly rate of statutory maternity pay (SMP) and (maternity allowance) will be £140.98 (up from £139.58).
• The weekly rate of statutory paternity pay (SPP) will be £140.98 (up from £139.58).
• The weekly rate of statutory shared parental pay (ShPP) will be £140.98 (up from £139.58).
• The weekly rate of statutory adoption pay (SAP) will be £140.98 (up from £139.58).

According to new research almost half of workers would work longer before retiring if more opportunities for flexible hours were offered. According to the British Social Attitudes Survey, 46% of those surveyed said that they would want to work part-time, while 30% would want a less strenuous role. The findings come in light of the recent release of employment figures that suggest that there are more older people in work than ever before.

Senior staff at the Dorchester Hotel have been criticised for sending a list of grooming standards to female applicants requiring them to meet certain standards while working at the hotel. The list prohibits female employees from arriving to work with oily skin, bitten nails or body odour, and suggests that female employees undergo regular manicures and wear full make-up.

List of do’s and don’ts: 

DO:

• shave your legs (even if wearing tights)
• wear full make-up
• wash your hair
• brush your teeth
• use deodorant
• have regular manicures

DON’T:

• Have oily skin
• Wear overly garish or bright make-up
• Display chipped or bitten nails
• Have off-putting body odour
• Display any excess body hair, which includes the face

Click here to read the article from The Telegraph.

In light of a major HMRC operation, thousands of care workers have received back pay amounting to £650,000 due to the failure of care providers to pay the national minimum wage. An HMRC spokesman explained that “all businesses, irrespective of their size or business sector, are responsible for paying the correct minimum wage to their staff. HMRC continues to crack down on employers that ignore the law”.

It’s that time of year again….when lawyers warn employers of the risks of tribunal claims at Christmas from staff. 

Over the years there has been plenty of case law and anecdotes about issues that have arisen during the holiday season.  From discrimination cases by employees on maternity leave who are “forgotten” about when it comes to Christmas party invites, to the organisations who hold Christmas parties in the office and have to issue rules about misuse of the office photocopier!

One of the most common areas that we advise on at this time of year is misconduct at the Christmas party itself.  Only last month was a case reported about a lucky employer who was not liable for the acts of its Managing Director who knocked out an employee at a hotel where celebrations had continued after the Christmas party.

With the rise of social media we have also seen a rise of incidents that occur post-Christmas – mostly to do with extra marital activities that have come to light after a few sherries on the dancefloor!  It is advisable for employers to have robust social media and bullying and harassment policies in place.

There have also been cases where employees have relied on drunken promises by managers of promotions and pay rises.  

In the current economic climate MLR are asked to advise on the ability to stop paying Christmas bonuses.  Depending on the wording of the employment contracts this may be possible.  However, where a bonus has been paid over a number of years, an employee may argue that they have now come to expect it and it is implied in their employment.

Finally, should we be so lucky as to have a white Christmas, for those businesses that do not close over the holiday, staff may find it difficult to attend work.  Employers should think about an adverse weather policy which could include reporting procedures and the possibility of staff working from home or taking annual leave.

Last but not least from everyone at Morgan LaRoche Solicitors – we hope you have a wonderful Christmas.