http://www.lelc.co.uk/en-gbFri, 11 May 2012 01:01:01 GMThttp://www.lelc.co.uk/news/73/crb+-+changes+to+checking+your+employee%27s+identity/ The CRB is introducing more stringent checking guidelines. These guidelines will apply to all applications for a CRB check. Whilst the changes are being brought in from the 28th May 2012 the old system of checking can still be used until 31st August 2012. The changes are being introduced to make it more difficult for individuals to conceal previous criminal records by concealing their name. There are three routes of checking which are set out in lists of documents named Group 1, 2a and 2b. In total, 21 documents are being removed from the current accepted list (e.g National Insurance Card, NHS card). Ultimately where an applicant (employee) cannot produce the documents for Route One they go onto Route Two which requires the use of an external validation service. This service will establish the individual is who they say they are through the identification of a ‘living history footprint’. The CRB is still finalising details of this service. If the applicant fails the external validation of who they say they are they must attend a police station at an appointed time to have their fingerprints taken. Route Three, which is more onerous regarding documentation, applies if the external validation is unsuccessful. Again they will be required to go for fingerprinting if they cannot produce the documents. Clients who use our CRB service are responsible for verifying the identity of their applicants. The full guidance on the changes can be found on the following link: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/agencies-public-bodies/crb/crb-press-releases/id-changes-docs/id-changes-guidance The CRB has stated it does not envisage a change in the fees (currently Standard CRB check - £26, Enhanced CRB check - £44, ISA Adult First - £6). We would remind employers that you are required to make basic document checks of all your staff to prevent anyone working illegally. Therefore in reality these changes should only affect a small number of applications. For the information to support you when checking an applicant’s documents for the purposes of a CRB check detailed information is currently available at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crb-id For further advice and support please contact your CRB advisor at Lloyds on crb@lelc.co.uk or on 0844 7700 656. Fri, 11 May 2012 01:01:01 GMThttp://www.lelc.co.uk/news/72/the+queen%92s+speech++and+sunday+trading+during+the+olympics+/ The Queen’s Speech Earlier today the Queen’s speech set out the government’s plans for the forthcoming parliament. It focussed on economic growth, justice and constitutional reform. Areas which will be of particular interest to employers are: Measures will be proposed to make parental leave more flexible so both parents can share parenting responsibilities and balance work and family commitments; The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill proposes an overhaul of the employment tribunal system, more options will be provided for the early resolution of disputes through ACAS We will keep you up to date with details of developments in these areas. Sunday Trading during the Olympics On another matter, the Sunday Trading (London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games) Act 2012 has been passed. The Act suspends restrictions under the Sunday Trading Act 1994 on Sunday trading hours for large shops during the games. If you are planning on opening at different times or requiring your employees to work different hours you need to check your contracts of employment to ascertain whether you can require employees to work the hours you are proposing. If not, you need to agree a temporary variation of working hours with them. It is important to remember that some shop workers are protected from being required to work on Sundays and others have the right to opt out of Sunday Working. If you require further information regarding Sunday working during the Olympics or if you have any employment law matters with which we can assist, please do not hesitate to contact Lloyds as we are happy to help. CALL LLOYDS ON 0844 7700 656 Wed, 9 May 2012 01:01:01 GMThttp://www.lelc.co.uk/news/71/do+your+staff+have+the+right+tools+for+the+job%3f+/ Overview It can often be overlooked that employers who require their employees to carry out tasks at work, have a legal responsibility to provide them with the correct tools for the job, and that they are in good condition and efficient working order. Adequate training and supervision must be provided on their use too - the depth and detail of which, will depend on the complexity and risk involved in the work. Not doing this resulted in a serious injury and prosecution as described in the following incident. What happened? An immigrant worker was tasked with removing a metal ‘globe’ seal from a curtain-sided lorry at a distribution centre near Newark operated by a national chain of electrical retailers. The worker was removing the seal, designed to stop tampering and theft, so that it could be replaced. Instead of providing the proper tool to do the job, the employee was left to use his hands to force the seal off. As the seal broke, a small, thin piece of metal, about 3cm in length, flew out and lodged in his left eye, penetrating the cornea and destroying the lens. What were the consequences? The worker had a total of 178 days’ sick leave, but fortunately, his sight has since improved after an artificial lens was inserted in his eye. When Newark and Sherwood District Council’s environmental health team investigated, it found the retailer had not carried out an adequate risk assessment for the work, and a specialist inspector from the HSE concluded that the seal should have been removed by cutting it with an appropriate tool, and that the company should have made gloves available at all times. The court heard that the retailer had never trained the injured worker in any system of seal removal, and that he and other Polish workers picked up the way to do things from each other. The injured worker claimed he had also seen supervisors breaking the seal with their hands in the same way. At Nottingham Magistrates’ Court the retailer was found guilty of failing to ensure employees’ safety, in breach of Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act, (the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees’), and a further offence under Regulation 3(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (not carrying out a suitable risk assessment). The District Judge fined the retailer £15,000 for each breach, plus £46,502 costs. In setting the penalties, he took into account the company’s previous good record, its quick response to the incident and the site’s recent 65% reduction in accidents. What do you need to do? To avoid exposing your staff to injury and a potential prosecution with all the associated costs, it’s well worth the effort of checking that employees have the right tools for the job and know how and when to use them correctly. This is a good time to ensure risk assessments, standards, training and supervision are appropriate, up-to-date and the provisions of your health and safety policy are being applied in practice. CALL LLOYDS ON 0844 7700 656 Wed, 2 May 2012 01:01:01 GMThttp://www.lelc.co.uk/news/70/compulsory+retirement/ Whilst you may have heard in the news that a court ruling suggests employers can force employees to retire, it is important not to get too excited. The Supreme Court’s decision in Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes does not mean that it is now going to be easy for employers to safely compulsorily retire employees. You may remember that following the abolition of the default retirement age of 65, employers will be directly discriminating against employees because of their age if they force them to retire. The exception to this is if the employer can justify the retirement age. This is not an easy task as employers must show that the retirement age is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The law has not changed on this. In Seldon, a partner in a law firm who was compulsorily retired complained of direct age discrimination. The Court found that the compulsory retirement age in the law firm’s partnership deed was directly discriminatory because of age. However, it was found that the firm had legitimate aims which meant that the discrimination could potentially be justified. It was held that in order for aims to be legitimate they must be of a public interest nature rather than purely individual reasons particular to the employer’s situation, such as improving competitiveness. The firm’s aims of retaining staff, workforce planning and limiting the need to expel partners by way of performance management were held to fall within the social policy objectives of intergenerational fairness and dignity. The case has now been sent back to the tribunal for it to decide whether the specific age of 65 was proportionate i.e. whether it was a necessary and appropriate means of achieving those aims. This will involve considering whether there are other less discriminatory measures which could have been used. If the firm is unable to pass this part of the test, they will have acted unlawfully. The decision in this case is useful for employers as it identifies some aims that can be considered to be legitimate. However, Lloyds’ advice is that this does not mean that these aims can be relied upon by all organisations. Aims have to be legitimate for the particular organisation concerned. It is also important to remember that employers must be able to show that the retirement age is a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim; this is arguably the harder part of the test. If you have any employment law matters with which we can assist, please do not hesitate to contact Lloyds as we are happy to help. CALL LLOYDS ON 0844 7700 656 Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:01:01 GMThttp://www.lelc.co.uk/news/69/employer+not+responsible+for+manager%27s+accident/ Overview Although most enforcement action for breaches of health and safety law is taken against employers, this is not always the case if the employer can demonstrate he has effective safety policies and procedures in place, as shown in the following incident. What happened? A manager of a tyre services chain was inflating a commercial tyre on a solid-rim wheel while the tyre and wheel was in a bay leaning against a wall. The wheel was suddenly blown partially out of the tyre and hit the manager, as he was standing too close, causing a soft tissue injury to his leg. The manager claimed damages against his employer stating that the practice of inflating the type of tyres involved was known to be relatively low risk and he would not make his own staff use the safety cage provided on all occasions. He contended he was due £8,000 compensation. The employer’s position The employer knew however, that inflating commercial vehicle tyres was recognised within his business, and the industry in general, to be potentially hazardous. Serious and even fatal injuries have occurred when the tyres explode under high pressure or spring from the wheel they’re being fitted to. Therefore, the employer insisted that the tyre must be inflated within a tyre cage provided in one of the bays. What were the findings? The judge concluded that the employer took health and safety very seriously. Not only did the employer have safety policies in place, there was a specific policy, which stated that the safety cage was to be used for the inflation of all loose commercial tyres, and staff were required to sign them once a year to confirm they had read and understood what was required. The employer’s procedures included an annual safety audit and managers were required to complete a quarterly safety monitoring report. Audit and monitoring records showed the specific items reviewed including a check that the tyre safety cage was clear, accessible and being used. The claim was dismissed. What do you need to do? If you have safety-critical equipment, make sure it’s clearly identified in risk assessment, hazard monitoring and audit documentation. This is a good time to ensure risk assessments, standards, training and supervision are appropriate, up-to-date and the provisions of your health and safety policy are being applied in practice. CALL LLOYDS ON 0844 7700 656 Tue, 24 Apr 2012 01:01:01 GMThttp://www.lelc.co.uk/news/68/dismissing+unsuitable+employees/ The 6th April 2012 saw a change to the law regarding the amount of qualifying service an employee must have to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. The change means that in England, Wales and Scotland: Employees employed on or after 6th April 2012 will need two years’ continuity of service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. Employees employed before that date will need one year’s continuity of service. As an employee is required to have a certain length of service in order to claim ordinary unfair dismissal, employers can in some circumstances use this to their advantage to safely dismiss an employee more quickly and easily than they could do if the employee had the right to claim ordinary unfair dismissal. This is generally referred to as an ‘unsuitability dismissal’ and does not involve following a formal procedure prior to dismissing. However this ‘loophole’ will only be helpful if: You keep accurate records You will need to be able to identify whether the employee requires one or two years’ service to claim ordinary unfair dismissal and their length of service because the quick ‘unsuitability dismissal’ process is not a safe route for those who can claim ordinary unfair dismissal. Such employees can complain to an employment tribunal that their dismissal was unfair and a procedure was not followed before dismissing them. You have clear and safe reasons for wishing to dismiss the employee The reasons for the dismissal must not be discriminatory or ‘automatically unfair’ (e.g. dismissing an employee for whistleblowing). An employee can complain to an employment tribunal about such treatment from the first day of their employment. If an employee brings a successful discrimination claim the amount of compensation you can be ordered to pay is unlimited, this is also the case for some automatically unfair dismissals. You can evidence the reason for the dismissal This is in case the dismissal is later challenged by the employee in an employment tribunal. For example, if you dismiss an employee for poor performance but they complain to an employment tribunal that you have dismissed them because of their sexual orientation you will need good evidence to show that their dismissal was solely due to performance. This would also be the case if you dismissed the employee for a conduct issue. When dismissing for poor performance documents such as appraisal and supervision records can be helpful supporting evidence - but only if they are an accurate reflection of the employee’s performance. Employers should not shy away from discussing and recording areas of weakness and improvements which need to be made. If you are very positive on supervision/appraisal forms where this is not deserved, and later wish to dismiss the employee, it is likely you will not have sufficient evidence to support the dismissal. Lloyds’ advice is to always contact us to discuss your situation prior to dismissing any employee irrespective of their length of service. Whilst an ‘unsuitability dismissal’ can be a useful tool for employers, it is important to ensure that it is a safe course of action in each case to avoid exposing your organisation to the risk of a successful tribunal claim. If you have any employment law issues you require assistance with, please do not hesitate to contact Lloyds as we are happy to help. Wed, 18 Apr 2012 01:01:01 GMThttp://www.lelc.co.uk/news/66/hse+business+charges+delayed/ Overview We told you in Safety Alert 0312A of the Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE) plans to recover costs from businesses for breaches of health and safety law via its ‘fee for intervention’ (FFI) scheme, due to begin on 6 April 2012. On hold The good news is that there’s been a last minute U-turn and the scheme has now been put on hold. This is because the ‘technical details’ of the scheme have not been finalised which means the legislation couldn’t be finished in time to be put before the government for approval. When now? Although the HSE hasn’t given a fixed date, it has confirmed that the FFI scheme will start at the next available opportunity, which is likely to be October 2012. In addition, HSE has stated it will continue with a ‘practice run’ and will publish detailed guidance on how FFI will work, ahead of its introduction - Lloyds Law will keep you informed of developments. What do you need to do? Although there is at least a six-month delay before the charging regime begins, it still makes good legal and economic sense to check that you are fully compliant in all aspects of your health and safety operations. This is a good time to ensure risk assessments, standards, training and supervision are appropriate, up-to-date and the provisions of your health and safety policy are being applied in practice. CALL LLOYDS ON 0844 7700 656 Wed, 4 Apr 2012 01:01:01 GMThttp://www.lelc.co.uk/news/65/talent+show+contestant+makes+a+song+and+dance++about+tribunal+claims+/ A contestant on the TV show Britain’s Got Talent has been unsuccessful in bringing discrimination claims against the show’s producers and two of the judges. The contestant suffered from alleged disabilities and performed poorly when she sang in a live show in front of an audience and the show’s judges. Consequently she did not proceed to the next round of the competition. The contestant went on to make a disability discrimination claim against the show’s producers and two of the judges personally. She alleged that the respondents had failed to make reasonable adjustments for her disabilities at the audition and that this affected her standard of performance. She later changed her tune rescinding her claim before again changing her mind and asking for the claim to be allowed to continue. She also went on to make a second claim for disability related harassment on the basis that her poor audition was aired on television and placed on YouTube. At a pre-hearing review an employment tribunal rejected all her claims. The contestant subsequently appealed to the EAT. The EAT found that the employment tribunal’s decision to reject her claims was correct. They too held that the respondents were neither employers nor employment service providers. As such the contestant was not covered by discrimination law. The EAT agreed with the tribunal that the contestant was not applying for employment by auditioning. The purpose of the audition, which the contestant had voluntarily attended, was to give her the opportunity to progress further in the competition. The EAT further agreed with the tribunal that irrespective of the above the contestant’s claims would not have been allowed to proceed. The disability related harassment claim had been submitted out of time and in the circumstances it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit for bringing the claim. It was also found that the claim in respect of the failure to make reasonable adjustments had no realistic prospect of success. This was because the contestant was not able to show that she had requested adjustments because of her disability or that the respondents should reasonably have been expected to know that she had a disability and was likely to be placed at a disadvantage. Whilst this case was decided under the Disability Discrimination Act, there are equivalent provisions in the Equality Act. Despite the contestant’s failure in this case it acts as a useful reminder to employers regarding the obligation to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees or applicants for employment. Employers are under an obligation to make reasonable adjustments if a disabled employee is placed at a substantial disadvantage compared to a non-disabled employee because of: A physical feature of the premises A provision, criteria or practice in their organisation The absence of an auxiliary aid (e.g text to speech software) Making ‘reasonable adjustments’ means that you will need to take reasonable steps to remove the disadvantage experienced by the disabled employee - in a nutshell you are levelling the playing field between the disabled and non-disabled employees. The same applies to applicants. However, an employer is not under a duty to make reasonable adjustments if they do not know, and could not reasonably be expected to know: In the case of an applicant or potential applicant, that the disabled person concerned is or may be an applicant for the employment. In any case (including that of an applicant or potential applicant), that the person has a disability and is likely to be at a substantial disadvantage compared with persons who are not disabled. As awards in successful discrimination claims, including those for failure to make reasonable adjustments, are uncapped it is important that you seek advice from Lloyds prior to taking any action. If you have any employment matters with which we can assist, please do not hesitate to contact Lloyds. CALL LLOYDS ON 0844 7700 656 Fri, 30 Mar 2012 01:01:01 GMThttp://www.lelc.co.uk/news/64/fuel+strikes+%96+planning+ahead/ Tanker drivers delivering fuel to UK forecourts have voted for strike action which could see disruption to petrol supplies around the country. The government has announced a contingency plan of using the army to deliver fuel, however if this is insufficient employees could face travel disruption. As a strike could begin as early as next week, it is important to consider what steps you could take to minimise any disruption to your business. You may wish to: Alert employees that they may need to put a contingency plan in place to enable them to get to work such as car sharing to reduce fuel consumption or walking if possible Allow employees who are unable to get to the workplace to work from home if appropriate Remind employees of the reporting procedure to follow if they are unable to attend work If employees are unable to attend work because of the fuel strike the day will be unpaid, unless alternative arrangements such as homeworking are agreed. You could allow employees the option of taking a day’s annual leave instead if they wished to do so. In the case of an employee who is genuinely unable to attend work because of a fuel shortage it would not be reasonable to discipline them for this as it is outside their control. Depending on the nature of your business and how badly you are affected by any disruption to fuel supplies you may not be able to provide your employees with sufficient work. If so, you may need to temporarily lay them off or place them on short-time working. You will need to have a clause in your contract of employment that permits you to do this. You should also seek advice from Lloyds on your situation before taking any action. If you have any employment law issues with which Lloyds can assist, please do not hesitate to contact us as we are happy to help. CALL LLOYDS ON 0844 7700 656 Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:01:01 GMThttp://www.lelc.co.uk/news/62/are+you+ready+for+the+reporting+of+injuries+%28riddor%29+changes%3f/ What are the changes? To bring it in line with the fit note scheme introduced in 2011, from 6 April 2012, the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) over-three-day injury reporting requirements will change. From then on, the trigger point will increase from over-three-days to over-seven-days incapacitation (not counting the day of the accident but including weekends or rest days). Note 1: Incapacitation means: The worker is absent or is unable to do work that they would reasonably be expected to do as part of their normal work. The deadline by which the over-seven-day injury must be reported will increase from 10 days to 15 days from the day of the accident and, as before, it should be made via the HSE’s RIDDOR website at: www.hse.gov.uk/riddor where the appropriate online form can be completed. All incidents can be reported online, but a telephone service still remains for reporting fatal and major injuriesonly, via the Incident Contact Centre (ICC) on 0845 3009923, Monday to Friday, 8.30 to 5pm. What about the previous over-three-day injuries? These must still be recorded (such as in the company ‘Accident Book’), but will no longer have to be reported to the HSE. That said, an injury that incapacitates an individual for up to seven days may nevertheless be pretty serious, so it is recommended that you: Investigate the incident to identify how it happened and what steps need to be taken to prevent a recurrence. Inform your insurer of the event. This is because even though it now doesn’t have to be reported to the HSE, the injured person may decide to make a personal injury claim through the civil courts at a later date. If you are unsure, or require advice, contact Lloyds for further support. Note 2: You must be able to produce RIDDOR records when asked by HSE or local authority inspectors. What else do you need to do? Ensure you inform all personnel within the organisation who need to know of these changes, such as those with specific responsibility to record, report and investigate accidents. This is a good time to ensure risk assessments, standards, training and supervision are appropriate, up-to-date and the provisions of your health and safety policy are being applied in practice. CALL LLOYDS ON 0844 7700 656 Tue, 20 Mar 2012 01:01:01 GMThttp://www.lelc.co.uk/news/63/national+minimum+wage+rates+from+october+2012/ The government has announced the national minimum wage rates that will take effect from the 1st October 2012. As previously indicated, the adult rate has been increased and the rates for younger workers have been frozen. The exception to the freeze is the Apprentice Rate which will be increased by five pence an hour. From 1st October 2012 the National Minimum Wage rates will be: £6.19 an hour for workers aged 21 and over (the Adult Rate) £4.98 an hour for workers aged 18-20 years old (the Development Rate) £3.68 an hour for workers aged 16-17 years old (the Young Workers Rate) £2.65 per hour for apprentices under 19 years old and those aged 19 and over in the first 12 months of their apprenticeship (the Apprentice Rate) Lloyds’ advice is to ensure that the appropriate parties in your organisation are aware of the rates that will be in force from 1st October 2012 so that your workers are paid at least the minimum wage. Remember that a failure to comply with the national minimum wage requirements may result in a worker complaining to an employment tribunal that you have made an unlawful deduction from their wages or that you have breached their contract. HM Revenue & Customs also have the power to enforce the National Minimum Wage. If you have any queries regarding employment issues, please do not hesitate to contact Lloyds as we are happy to help. CALL LLOYDS ON 0844 7700 656Tue, 20 Mar 2012 01:01:01 GMThttp://www.lelc.co.uk/news/61/are+you+prepared%3f/ There are three events coming up that will be of interest to employers. These are the increase to the unfair dismissal qualifying period, the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee and the Olympic Games. We take a look at each of these below and discuss what steps you can take to ensure your organisation is prepared. Increase to the Unfair Dismissal Qualifying Period As you will be aware from previous Legal Updates the qualifying period for ordinary unfair dismissal claims is set to double for employees who start employment on or after 6th April 2012. Such employees will need to have two years’ continuity of service before they can bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. It is important to note that the situation is different for individuals who are employed before 6th April 2012. They will continue to need only one year's service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. In certain situations, such as where you are considering an ‘unsuitability dismissal’ it is vital to know whether the employee requires one or two years’ continuity of service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. In preparation for the change in the law Lloyds recommends that you ensure you have adequate record keeping procedures in place. It is also advisable to review your Employee Handbook to ascertain whether it needs updating in light of the changes to the unfair dismissal rules, for example your disciplinary policy may state that it applies to those who have over one year’s continuity of service. If you wish to make changes to your Employee Handbook please contact your Advice and Support Service consultant who will be able to assist you with this. The Queen’s Diamond Jubilee This year there will be an additional bank holiday on 5th June 2012 to mark the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. The late May bank holiday will be moved to 4th June 2012 to allow for a four day weekend of celebrations. Whether or not your employees will be entitled to paid leave on the additional bank holiday will depend on your contract of employment. This is because employees do not have a statutory right to paid leave on bank holidays. Lloyds' advice is to check your contracts of employment to ascertain whether or not your employees are entitled to paid leave on the additional bank holiday. If you are unsure of your employees' entitlement, please contact your Advice and Support Service consultant who will be happy to assist you. If the employee’s contract does not entitle them to paid leave on the additional bank holiday: They can request to take the day as holiday .They will need to follow your usual holiday request procedure and if the holiday is granted it will come out of their existing annual leave entitlement just like any other days holiday. As with any other holiday request, you can refuse it if you have good business reasons for doing so. It is important however that you treat all employees fairly and consistently when considering holiday requests. You could ask them to take the day as holiday if you are not going to operate on that day.You could give them notice that they are required to take the extra bank holiday as a day's holiday if you have an existing right to do so e.g. custom and practice. The day's leave would then come out of their existing holiday entitlement. In this scenario, we would recommend giving a reasonable amount of prior notice, as this will enable them to make holiday arrangements. The more advance notice you give, the less likely you are to encounter problems closer to the time. You could allow them to have the extra bank holiday in addition to their current paid holiday entitlement This would be in the spirit of the celebrations and could be an opportunity to reward them if you wished to do so. If your employees are going to be working on the additional bank holiday, whether or not they will have a right to extra pay (e.g. time and a half) for that day will depend on their contract of employment. Whilst some employers do offer additional pay for working on a bank holiday there is no statutory requirement to do so. We advise you to check your contracts to ensure that you pay your employees correctly. The Olympic Games There is not long to go now until the Olympic Games open on 27th July 2012. Below are two of the issues that it is advisable employers start considering in advance of the games. Travel Disruption If you have offices in London or near a Games venue or employees who commute to work from such areas it is important to be aware that travel disruption is highly likely. It is expected to be particularly bad during peak commuter and competition times. Information about getting around during the games and the expected impact on travel can be found on the Transport for London website and the London 2012 website. If travel disruption could affect your business, it is important to start planning early. Lloyds' advice is to make your employees aware of the likely travel disruption and advise them that they will need to ensure sufficient time for their journey. Employees should be alerted that in some cases they may need to plan alternative routes or ways of getting to work due to the disruption. It is advisable to provide employees with details of where they can find travel information to assist them. Employees should be advised to check travel information in advance and to keep up to date as to how their commute may be affected by the Games. You may wish to consider: • Accommodating different start and finish times during the Games • Allowing employees to work from home if possible Where such measures are to be taken you should additionally communicate this to your employees and provide them with details of any conditions that must be met, such as permission being required from their line manager. If employees do attend work late it is important that employers act reasonably, as with any other case of misconduct. The matter should initially be investigated to ascertain the reason for the employee’s lateness. Where there is no good reason for it and the employee has not previously been late it will usually be appropriate to deal with the matter informally. You should contact your Advice and Support Service consultant for advice on your case prior to taking any action. Watching the Olympics Employers are not required to make any special allowances for employees who wish to watch the Games. It could be a case of business as usual for your organisation or alternatively you may wish to be flexible to allow employees to watch some of the events on television. Whatever approach you plan to take it is important to communicate this clearly to your employees. If you wish to take steps to facilitate your employees watching some of the events you could consider the following: Make exceptions to your policies to allow employees to watch or listen to the Games whilst at work or during their breaks (ensuring that you have the correct licence(s) such as a TV licence to do this) Introduce a special flexi-working schedule to allow employees to start and finish at different times so they can watch an event when they would usually be at work Depending on your organisation, allow employees to swap shifts to enable those who wish to watch an event to swap with those who are happy to work at that time In the last two cases it is important to bear in mind the requirements of the Working Time Regulations regarding working time limits and rest breaks. If you do wish to introduce special arrangements it is important that you ensure you act fairly and consistently and that you can justify limiting the departure from your usual policies for this period only. If you have any employment law matters with which Lloyds can assist, please do not hesitate to contact us as we are happy to help. CALL LLOYDS ON 0844 7700 656 Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:01:01 GMThttp://www.lelc.co.uk/news/60/new+charges+levied+on+businesses+for+hse+visits/ Overview As reported in our Safety Alerts 0211 and 0711A, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) plans to recover costs from businesses for material breaches of health and safety law in its new ‘fee for intervention’ (FFI) scheme. As the implementation date of 6 April 2012 is almost upon us, it would be wise to ensure procedures are in place to avoid falling foul of expensive charges should you receive a visit from a HSE inspector. What does it mean in practice? The FFI scheme means businesses found to have broken health and safety laws will pay the costs incurred by HSE in helping them to put matters right, rather than the public purse. What is a material breach? The HSE has confirmed: ‘a material breach is, when in the opinion of an inspector; there has been a contravention of health and safety law that requires written notification (email, instant visit report letter, letter, enforcement notice or prosecution) of the contravention to the duty holder.’ Examples of a material breach in practice might be: • An unsafe/unguarded machine • Serious exposure to hazardous substances • Dangerous work at height • Significant exposure to noise/vibration levels, etc. What will it cost? The HSE has confirmed an hourly charge of £124 during the visit. If they identify a material breach at any point during the visit, employers will be charged for the entire time they are on the premises. It is expected charges will be applied in six-minute increments. Furthermore, if during the identified material breach, an enforcement notice is served to force the business to rectify it, then costs can be expected of at least £1500. If the inspector feels that the issue can be dealt with without the need for a ‘notice,’ the expected charge will be in the region of £800. Note: Duty holders that are complying with the law or are only in ‘technical breach’ – where no intervention is necessary – will not pay anything. A technical breach could be something like failing to display the statutory poster ‘Health and Safety Law – What you need to know’ for example. The HSE is expected to release non-exhaustive guidance on what constitutes a chargeable material breach in due course. What do you need to do? The only way to avoid these fees is to keep below the HSE’s radar, i.e. prevent accidents, dangerous occurrences, etc. Therefore, it makes good legal and economic sense to check that you are fully compliant in all aspects of your health and safety operations, as not doing, is likely to incur much higher business costs than in the past. This is a good time to ensure risk assessments, standards, training and supervision are appropriate, up-to-date and the provisions of your health and safety policy are being applied in practice. CALL LLOYDS ON 0844 7700 656 Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:01:01 GMThttp://www.lelc.co.uk/news/67/increase+to+statutory+payment+rates/With statutory payment rates being increased in April, we thought it would be a good time to remind employers of the new rates that will be coming into force. Statutory Payment Rate From 1st April 2012 Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) First 6 weeks paid at 90% of normal weekly earnings Then 33 weeks at £135.45 (or 90% of normal weekly earnings if this is lower). Statutory Adoption Pay £135.45 per week for 39 weeks (or 90% of normal weekly earnings if this is lower) Statutory Paternity Pay £135.45 per week (or 90% of normal weekly earnings if this is lower) Statutory Payment Rate From 6th April 2012 Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) £85.85 per week Lower Earnings Limit £107.00 per week Lloyds’ advice is to ensure that the appropriate parties in your organisation are aware of the changes to the rates to ensure compliance. If you have any questions about statutory payments, or there is any other employment law matter we can assist you with, please do not hesitate to contact us. Call Lloyds on 0844 7700 656 Please click here to download a printer friendly version. Thu, 1 Mar 2012 01:01:01 GMThttp://www.lelc.co.uk/news/59/national+minimum+wage+rates+for+younger+workers+may+be+frozen+/ The government is expected to make an official announcement regarding the 2012/2013 National Minimum Wage rates in the next two months. Whilst it is expected that the minimum wage for adult workers will be increased, it is possible that rates for younger workers could be frozen. The Department of Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) has been reported as saying that increases in the National Minimum Wage make employers more reluctant to hire and that: ‘There are extra reasons to be cautious and moderate in recommending National Minimum Wage rates for young people. Evidence suggests that labour market outcomes of younger workers are more at risk from the uprating of the National Minimum Wage’. Whether rates for younger workers will be frozen remains to be seen. Whatever the decision, it is important for employers to ensure that workers are paid the correct rate. Where organisations pay employees above this it is important that the reason for the pay scales is transparent, and they are applied fairly in order to avoid claims such as discrimination. If you have any employment law matters with which Lloyds can assist, please do not hesitate to contact us as we are happy to help. CALL LLOYDS ON 0844 7700 656 Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:01:01 GMThttp://www.lelc.co.uk/news/58/director+feels+the+heat+after+premises+fire/ Overview You may recall last year, we informed you there are still many employers/persons in control of premises not paying sufficient attention to fire safety law? (See Lloyds Law Safety Alert: Fire breaches lands employer in court 1211). Unfortunately, the message is still not getting through, as another serious case – considered a landmark hearing for the UK fire and rescue service (FRS) – shows, as it is believed to be the first time that a jury, rather than magistrates or an individual judge, has convicted a defendant under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, commonly referred to as the FSO. What happened? A fire broke out in a London hotel and the blaze spread quickly from a first floor guest bedroom, up a staircase to the floor above and along a corridor. Three people escaped from the fire, two by using the stairs and a third by climbing out of a second floor window. Following the fire, London FRS fire safety inspectors visited the hotel and discovered a number of serious fire safety concerns. These included defective fire doors, blocked escape routes and no smoke alarms in some of the hotel’s bedrooms. The hotel owner/director was also unable to produce a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment and was found not to have provided staff with adequate fire safety training. What were the consequences? The owner initially appeared before magistrates for contraventions of the FSO, and the case was first heard at Highbury Corner Magistrates Court, where he pleaded not guilty to all twelve charges. The case was committed to Blackfriars Crown Court for trial, where the defendant was found guilty on all counts, with the fine being apportioned between the corporate defendant (the hotel as a ‘limited company,’) fined £30,000, and the individual defendant (the ‘owner/director’) receiving a fine of £180,000. The defendants were further ordered to pay prosecution costs of £50,000 and compensation of £2,000 (to a guest who had to escape the fire through a second floor window). What do you need to do? The above case is yet another illustration of the powers of the FSO, so it is vital to recognise that responsibility for fire safety is specifically that of the ‘Responsible Person’ i.e. the employer/occupier or person otherwise responsible for the premises. In practice, this means that Responsible Persons in control of premises are required by law to carry out a fire risk assessment and act on its findings. The risk assessment should also identify actions that need to be taken in order to protect the building from fire. It must be kept under constant review and amended if any changes are made to the premises This is a good time to ensure risk assessments, standards, training and supervision are appropriate, up-to-date and the provisions of your health and safety policy are being applied in practice. Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:01:01 GMThttp://www.lelc.co.uk/news/57/convictions+to+become+%91spent%92+sooner/ The Government is proposing to reduce the amount of time an individual must wait before a criminal conviction can be classed as ‘spent’. It is anticipated that the changes will come into force in April 2013. This is of interest to employers as once an individual’s conviction is spent, it does not have to be disclosed unless an exception applies. An example of when an exception would apply is if the job was exempt under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, such as a dentist, or there is a regulated activity under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, for example teaching children in a school. The Government hopes that by enabling convictions to become spent sooner, it will be easier for former offenders to find work and break the cycle of offending. For those employers that are required to carry out Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) checks Lloyds can help you with this. We act as an Umbrella Body to the Criminal Records Bureau. This means we can act as an intermediary between you as the employer and the Criminal Records Bureau and simplify the whole checking process for you. If you would like further information about this service please contact us on crb@lelc.co.uk If you have any employment issues regarding spent or unspent criminal convictions please contact Lloyds for advice. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 01:01:01 GMThttp://www.lelc.co.uk/news/56/unsecured+load+and+first+aid+failings+cost+employer/ Overview Employers are required to ensure there are effective control measures in the workplace to prevent injury or ill health as far as is reasonably practicable. They are also required to ensure there are adequate first aid arrangements for their employees whilst at work. The level of first aid arrangements required is dictated by a needs assessment of risk, accompanied by an appropriate level of training and effective communication to ensure everyone in the organisation is aware of what to do in the event of an injury. Not following these requirements led to a serious workplace injury, followed by an inadequate first aid response, that subsequently landed an employer in court as this recent case shows. What happened? An employee was using a forklift truck to load computer cabinets onto a trailer at a logistics company’s distribution park in Lichfield, Staffs, when he noticed that one of the cabinets was rocking on the forks. He got out of the forklift to catch it, but the load fell forward, hitting him on the head and knocking him to the ground, breaking his neck and right wrist. Why did it happen? Firstly, the company had failed to assess the risks of moving and loading goods in a secure manner, and to instruct, monitor and supervise forklift drivers properly. Secondly, the company’s system for dealing with accidents or injuries at work was also inadequate. Although the employee was bleeding from a visible head wound, the depot manager did not know who the first aiders were, and rather than leaving him in the office with a colleague, the manager instead took him around the site looking for help. When a trained first aider finally assessed his injuries, he failed to recognise their seriousness; nobody called an ambulance and the first aider drove the injured employee by car to a hospital with no accident and emergency unit. What were the consequences? After being airlifted to Heartlands Hospital in Birmingham, he eventually spent six days in hospital and 14 weeks in traction, and is now partially disabled. The investigating Health and Safety Executive (HSE) inspector commented: "There had been a string of management failings. It was clear that this employee had suffered a head injury and the company should have treated this as a very serious incident and called an ambulance immediately.” The company admitted breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 at Stafford Crown Court for failing to ensure its employees’ safety, and was fined £60,000 and ordered to pay costs of £41,339. What do you need to do? The common thread throughout is that there was a failure to identify risk and put into practice effective forklift truck control measures, proper first aid arrangements, and communicating them to management and staff. This is a good time to ensure risk assessments, standards, training and supervision are appropriate, up-to-date and the provisions of your health and safety policy are being applied in practice. CALL LLOYDS ON 0844 7700 656Wed, 8 Feb 2012 01:01:01 GMThttp://www.lelc.co.uk/news/55/timings+for+law+reforms/ January is proving to be a busy month for updates on the government’s law reforms. In a written answer to Parliament the Employment Relations Minister has provided further details of timings for reforms announced last year. Subject to Parliamentary approval the following tribunal changes will come into effect on 6th April 2012: Unfair dismissal cases These will be heard by a judge sitting alone. At the moment, unfair dismissal cases are usually heard by a judge and two lay (non-legal) members. Witness statements will be ‘taken as read’ unless a judge directs otherwise This means that witnesses will not usually be required to read out their statements as part of their evidence; instead the tribunal will read these in private. Witness expenses The government will withdraw state-funded witness expenses. Instead, Tribunals will be given powers to direct parties to bear the costs of witness attendance, including the costs of witnesses called by the successful party. The Employment Relations Minister has stated that the following ‘will be implemented when parliamentary time allows’: Financial penalties for employers Of concern is if employers are found to have breached employment rights the tribunal will have discretion to decide whether or not to impose a financial penalty on the employer. The penalty would be payable to the Exchequer and would be in addition to any award made to the employee. Such penalties will be half of the total award made by the tribunal, subject to a maximum cap of £5,000. The penalty will be reduced by 50% if paid within 21 days. The impact of this is that it could be more costly for an employer if they fail to comply with an employee’s legal rights. How you treat your employee’s now could affect any future claim brought against you when this penalty system is in place. Early conciliation This will require claimants to submit tribunal claims to ACAS initially so that the parties can try to reach an agreement without resorting to an employment tribunal. If agreement cannot be reached or parties refuse to take part the claimant will then be able to submit a claim to an employment tribunal. We will keep you updated with any further developments. If you have any questions, or we can be of assistance please do not hesitate to call Lloyds Law. CALL LLOYDS ON 0844 7700 656 Tue, 31 Jan 2012 01:01:01 GMThttp://www.lelc.co.uk/news/54/employer+failed+to+follow+own+safety+procedures/ Overview Most employers recognise that it is a legal requirement to carry out risk assessments and have an effective Health and Safety Policy. In reality though, accidents and subsequent offences occur when the risk assessments are inadequate and/or the procedures called for in the health and safety policy are ignored or not properly maintained, as the recent prosecution case below shows. What happened? The line supervisor in an Essex packaging company was using cleaning paper to dry machine parts, when the paper got caught between two glue rollers, pulling her right hand into the machine and severing the tips of two of her fingers. An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that although the company's stated policy was not to clean the gluing machine while its rollers were rotating, it was standard practice to ignore this. Why did it happen? Basildon Magistrates' Court was told staff were not given adequate training in how to clean the machine safely, and the guard it had been fitted with was not well enough maintained to prevent access to the rollers. The investigating HSE inspector commented: "The worker was failed by the company's lack of proper training, inadequate assessment of risks, an absence of safe working practices and preventing access to dangerous equipment. "It is simply unacceptable that this lady should be injured at work as a consequence of her employer's negligence. I hope other employers take note of this case and review their own processes." What were the consequences? The employee was off work for approximately two months but has been told the nerve damage she suffered to her fingers may be permanent. The packaging firm of Edgware, Middlesex, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined a total of £12,000 with costs of £4,971 – note: Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974 states: ‘It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.’ What do you need to do? This is a good time to ensure risk assessments, standards, training and supervision are appropriate, up-to-date and the provisions of your health and safety policy are being applied in practice. CALL LLOYDS ON 0844 7700 656 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:01:01 GMT