Russell HR Consulting

As the news breaks today that serious failings have been uncovered within the NHS, the Chairman of Colchester Hospital and University NHS Foundation Trust is probably wishing that more attention had been paid to detail and that his story was not headline news.

Richard Borne was relieved of his post at the Colchester trust, citing poor leadership.

It said the trust, which had been under review for nine months, had failed to meet waiting targets for A&E and cancer care, or to provide acceptable standards of patient care.

Death rates among patients were also 12% higher than expected. Urgent action is now being taken to raise standards.

A series of errors and failings were reported and it is vital that your business does not suffer the same headline scrutiny.

At Russell HR Consulting Ltd, we can help avoid mistakes with employees and employers and assist you and your business to work effectively and efficiently.

For more information about how we can help, please contact our team on 0845 644 8955 or contact pm@russellhrconsulting.co.uk

27^th November.  It must be about time for me to prepare for Christmas by grumbling that it’s all too commercial and it starts far too early (the sprouts have been cooking for several weeks now).  In other words, I have a severe attack of bah humbug  - not yet a disability within the meaning of the DDA, but give it time ………

At this time of year I always send a Party Pooper Letter (PPL) to all my clients.  After the sort of year we’ve had, I’m not sure how many employers will be having a Christmas party for their employees.  But just in case you are, and especially if you have any party animals who might emulate the Kate Moss or Amy Winehouse style of celebration, forewarned is forearmed.

The PPL effectively says, “Have a great time, but not so great you break the law.”

The work’s Christmas do is a work-related activity and that means that employees’ behaviour at the party is governed by the organization’s rules, including its disciplinary procedure. If employees become excessively drunk, get involved in any fighting, unlawful harassment, the taking of drugs, or other similar unwanted behaviour either at the party or on the way home afterwards, they will be subject to the same procedures as would apply in the cold and sober light of day.

A wise employer will write to its employees before the event providing guidance, notifying employees of arrangements (including any arrangements to get home safely) and advising of the consequences of inappropriate behaviour.  Every year everyone groans when I send out the PPL; but every year, someone comes back sheepishly (if they haven’t sent the PPL) or rather more relieved when they have.

The doctrine of vicarious liability means that employers can be liable for the wrongful acts of their employees in certain circumstances, which could include the work’s party.  At our introduction to employment law training I talk about vicarious liability in the context of discrimination.  Managers are always horrified to find out how it affects them.

Make sure you protect yourself and then you can relax and enjoy the party.

For guidance on writing PPLs, or any other HR advice and support, give us a call on    0845 644 8955 or email pm@russellhrconsulting.co.uk

I have always thought that I’m a Celebrity ….. Get Me Out of Here! is yet another televisual example of throwing Christians to the lions, except in this case, the lions would probably get galloping indigestion.

Listening to Chris Evans holding forth about Ant (or Dec’s) hair prior to I’m A Celebrity started me thinking about sex discrimination related to appearance and dress codes.*

Last week the Telegraph reported that there is still technically a ban in Paris forbidding the wearing trousers by women.  Introduced in 1800 by Paris’ police chief, the rule has been diluted and relaxed over the years; for example, trousers became permissible when the woman was “holding the reins of a horse”, or “on a bicycle or holding it by the handlebars”.

When I deliver employment law training, the subject of dress codes often comes up in discussion and is a surprisingly emotive subject.  The Sex Discrimination Act (among others) has clear implications for dress codes and employers must take care not to include elements which could be discriminatory.

Discrimination is not ‘different treatment’ but ‘less favourable treatment’ and a comparison is not carried out on an item-by-item basis, but on an overall standard  So for example, provided that both genders are required to dress to the same degree of formality then neither is treated less favourably. This standard must be the same for each gender, but can be made up of different elements according to the conventions of that time and marketplace.

However, employers should note that social conventions change over time. In one case an employer whose a policy prescribed skirts for women was found not to be discriminatory.  That case dates back to the 1970s and would probably be decided differently today. A safer option would be to offer a choice, providing it was still appropriately formal. The same principles will apply where uniforms are worn.

Let’s leave the last word on the Parisian anomaly to Evelyne Pisier, a law professor who points out that given that trousers are compulsory for Parisian policewoman, they are all breaking the law.

For advice on dress codes and other employment matters please give us a call on 0845 644 8955 or email pm@russellhrconsulting.co.uk or see our website for employment law training 

*There are also potential issues with religious discrimination too – but that’s for another day.

On your work today were you accosted by someone in a silly costume and carrying a bucket?  Has anyone asked you to sponsor them to have their head shaved, legs waxed, or sit in a bath of something gooey?  Are the neighbours’ children asking if they can wash your car?  Do you have a sneaking suspicion that the country has been invaded by strange aliens who look vaguely like custard-coloured teddy bears with a rather fetching polka dot eye patch?

In case you haven’t noticed, today is the annual appeal day for the Charity Children in Need, when normally sane people do daft things to raise money to help make a positive change to the lives of disadvantaged children and young people across the UK.  Last year £38 million were raised, and it is hoped that this target will be exceeded during tonight’s shenanigans.

But this is not a new phenomenon.  The very first broadcast appeal for children was a five-minute radio programme on Christmas day in 1927. This was the year after the general strike, and although mass marketing meant that the wireless was now reaching ‘ordinary’ households, there were still close on two million unemployed, the average wage for an agricultural worker for a 50 hour week was £1 11s 6d (approximately £94 today), and the country was still reeling from the effects of a war in which almost a million people lost their lives and a further 1.6 million military personnel were wounded.

And yet, the appeal raised £1143 18s 3d – around  £54,000 in today’s money.

Generous Britons will be contributing to Children in Need tonight, but the charity operates all year round, giving grants to hundreds of different organisations, some of which are very small and don’t have the resources to fundraise for themselves.

We at Russell HR Consulting Ltd like to do our bit to help, and support our chosen charities all year round too.  We make a donation to Dogs for the disabled from subscriptions to Law on the move®, to the Bob Champion Trust through sales of Off the sick list, and over the past year we have held seminars from which the proceeds were donated to Willen Hospice.

For more information on our products, services and charitable work, please take a look at our website, or contact one of the team on 0845 644 8955.

While health and safety at work is incredibly important, Russell HR Consulting advocates applying the law in a sensible and proportionate way.  Unfortunately, a sort of red mist seems to descend over so many people when health and safety is mentioned and we end up with sheer silliness.

And this is what seems to have happened last week.  Army veteran Jean Reno fought in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq, but left the army in 2007 after suffering serious brain injuries in a road accident.  He was helped into a new flat by service charities. 

Dressed in full military regalia, Mr Reno has been trying to do his bit to fund raise and last year raised more than £1,500 by selling poppies at Gunwharf Quays shopping centre, in Portsmouth.  However, this year he was told to stop selling poppies at unless he agreed to fill in a permission slip, which included a risk assessment.  When he refused, the guard asked him to leave the premises.

Mr Reno has pointed out that as he wasn’t required to complete a risk assessment when he was sent to Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Afghanistan, or Iraq, it’s somewhat odd that one should be needed in the comparative safety of Gunwharf Quays.

“I don’t normally make a habit of leaving my house wearing my regimental blazer with medals on my chest, a box full of poppies and a collection tin, so I thought it was obvious that I had permission,” said Mr Reno.

Director of Gunwharf Quays Peter Emery commented “We were given a list from the Royal British Legion of the people who would be collecting for them this year. But Mr Reno was not on it.

“We approached him to try and make him official and get him on the list but he took offence. It is regrettable that it came to this but Mr Reno has now signed the form and we are happy to have him back selling poppies on the site. We fully support the Poppy Appeal.”

We do live in a very odd world, don’t we?

For help with understanding employment law, finding out about the risks and learning what to do to achieve the results you need, please contact us on 0845 644 8955, or pm@russellhrconsulting.co.uk or have a look at our services and products on our website www.russellhrconsulting.co.uk.  

The HR Headmistress finds that fat facts are still on the agenda.  Following on from our story about Kate Winslet’s exercise regime and the supersized bus drivers, we read that the BBC has recently reported the results of a survey into how obesity affects careers and salary. 

This survey, carried out by The Hospital Group, indicates that the obese find it more difficult to earn above the national average income.  2,056 UK adults responded.  Just over half (53%) said they were overweight or obese compared with 45% who were normal or underweight.  46% earn more than £20,000 a year, which is the national average, while the majority earn between £10,000 and £15,000.

The overweight or obese said their weight had a negative impact on their ability to take part in leisure activities - 23% mentioned cycling, swimming and running and 14% said it affected their sex lives.  They also described some of the ways their weight had held them back in their careers.  One person said they could not comply with the Marine and Coastguard Agency limits for a licence.  Another admitted they had taken too many days off because of illness.   Many respondents said there was a perception at work that they were lazy but the level of their output did not support that.

One in three adults in the UK are expected to be obese by 2012.

In 2012 employers will be taking on the financial responsibility for pensions and could be paying an extra tax for car parking spaces for employees (what do we pay taxes for?  Remind me ……).  The HR Headmistress cynically wonders how long it will be before the Government compels employers to pay for gym memberships and other special treatments to help the larger employee get fit. 

If you need advice on how to manage sickness absence, take a look at our book Off the sick list or sign up for our course on the subject.  Contact us on 0845 644 8955 or email on pm@russellhrconsulting.co.uk.

The HR Headmistress was amused to discover that two subjects as disparate as Oscar-winning actress Kate Winslet and some cuddly Stagecoach drivers have cropped up in roughly the same subject bracket this week.

Kate Winslet, star of “Titanic” and “The Reader” sued the Daily Mail over an article published in January entitled “Should Kate Winslet win an Oscar for the world’s most irritating actress?” The article disputed Miss Winslet’s assertion that she did not attend a gym but exercised for 20 minutes or so each day at home, suggesting that she must have worked harder on her figure.

This week the actress accepted £25,000 in libel damages.  Her lawyer Rachel Atkins said the story, was offensive in tone.

“The claimant has frequently asserted the right of women to accept the way that they look and by accusing her of trying to mislead the public, the defendant caused her a great deal of distress,” Atkins said. “It was simply not true.”

The Daily Mails published an apology in September accepting that Miss Winslet had not been duplicitous, and had agreed to pay the damages and costs.

Perhaps the Stagecoach bus drivers, whose weight now exceeds 23 stone, should take a leaf from Miss Winslet’s book and exercise each day for 20 minutes.

The weight limits do not apply to passengers. The issue is with the drivers’ seats, because they are adjustable and the mechanisms have maximum safe working loads. Those barred from driving because of their weight are being offered support to get fitter or alternative work within the company.

Union representatives, who are working with Stagecoach on the issue, say they have advised introducing healthy food into staff canteens or possibly subsidising gym memberships for staff.

Despite the commonsense approach demonstrated, this turn of events has caused some grumbles. One driver (who declined to be named) described the move as blatant discrimination, who claims he was ordered to ‘go to Tesco’ and get weighed.

He said: “I’ve been a driver for years. It’s so embarrassing to be called into the office and to be told to go to the local supermarket to get weighed. Then to be told I am too fat to drive a bus is ridiculous. They are just discriminating against people who are overweight.”

(Just for that driver’s information, as yet there is no anti-discrimination legislation specifically dealing with obesity, but in this madly PC world it may well come …..)

It’s understandable that larger employees may feel uncomfortable about this policy, but employers have a huge responsibility under the health and safety legislation.  Can you imagine the carnage if a seat broke under a weighty driver when he’s bowling along at 40mph with a full load of passengers in rush hour traffic? By working with union representatives, and seeking to accommodate employees who breach the 23 stone requirement, Stagecoach have taken a sensible, justifiable and proportionate approach. 

For guidance on policies and procedures relating to discrimination or to review your staff handbook, why not give us a call on 0845 644 8955 or email us – pm@russellhrconsulting.co.uk

Earlier this year, the HR Headmistress reported on the unusual case of Tim Nicholson who complained that that his philosophical beliefs had put him at odds with senior executives at his former employer Grainger plc, the UK’s largest listed residential property company.  Mr Nicholson had been employed as Head of Sustainability. When he was made redundant in July last year, Mr Nicholson submitted a complaint to an employment tribunal, alleging that while Grainger had good written policies on the environment, it had refused to abide by them. Mr Nicholson claimed that when he tried to encourage the company to become more responsible, he was obstructed by his bosses. For example, when Rupert Dickinson, Grainger’s Chief Executive, left his BlackBerry behind in London while on a business trip to Ireland, he simply ordered one of his staff to get on a plane and deliver the device to him.

Yesterday Mr Justice Michael Burton decided that: “A belief in man-made climate change, and the alleged resulting moral imperatives, is capable if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations.” Under those regulations it is unlawful to discriminate against a person on the grounds of their religious or philosophical beliefs.

Parliament did not originally legislate for political belief, and Justice Burton is in no doubt that the belief is political in this case, but now it seems that, not only will this lead to more claims, it will also be inconsistent in its effects, protecting some political beliefs but not others.

Five tests

In his written judgment, Mr Justice Burton set out five tests to determine whether a philosophical belief could come under employment regulations on religious discrimination:

• The belief must be genuinely held.

• It must be a belief and not an opinion or view based on the present state of information available.

• It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life.

• It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.

• It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

Humanism was given as an example meeting the criteria, while belief in a political party or the supreme nature of Jedi knights, from the Star Wars movies, were offered as ones that do not.

Employers should be mindful of this decision, especially when dealing with any employees with strongly held views and beliefs.

The HR Headmistress is not well versed in the ways of football, so it came a something of a surprise to hear yesterday that Wayne and Coleen Rooney were celebrated the birth of their newborn son, Kai Wayne Rooney. Kai was born at Liverpool Women’s Hospital, weighing in at a healthy 8lbs, 2oz.

Wayne Rooney was present at the birth, having remained with his wife at the hospital since their arrival at 10pm on Sunday.

So will Rooney, England’s leading striker, take his paternity leave?  It’s an interesting questions because six years after the right to take paternity leave was introduced, almost half of all new fathers fail to take their two week entitlement.

Most employees who are the father of a child or its mother’s husband/partner, and who expect to have responsibility for the child’s upbringing, will qualify for paternity leave. Most employees are also entitled to Statutory Paternity Pay (SPP) from their employers, and they also have the right to return to the same job after paternity leave.

Employees can choose to take either one week or two consecutive weeks’ paid paternity leave (but not odd days).

Paternity leave must be taken within 56 days of the actual date of birth of the child, or

if the child is born early, within the period from the actual date of birth up to 56 days after the first day of the week in which the birth was expected.

Currently, Stautory Paternity Pay is paid at the weekly rate of £123.06. One wonders how this will go down with £110,000 a week player Rooney.

Ministers announced plans earlier this year for an extension of parental leave. From 2012, fathers will be entitled to the second six months of their partner’s maternity leave as long as the child’s mother goes back to work after the first six months.  Experts have questioned extending the rights of fathers if they are not making use of the ones they already have.

They have both been named as inspirational leaders in a poll by the Prince’s Trust.  I do find them to be slightly strange choices………….  while the X-Factor is (in the opinion of the HR Headmistress) the equivalent of throwing modern day Christians to the lions, Henry VIII was really not a nice man to know , with a marked tendency to wife-murdering.  At least Cowell is only sarcastic and makes the odd contestant cry.  Inspirational?   Hmmmmm.

Seven leading youth organizations joined forces to launch the campaign, led by The Prince’s Trust, including the British Youth Council, Changemakers, Citizenship Foundation, National Youth Agency, Young Foundation and the UK Youth Parliament.

In the survey, which canvassed the opinions of more than 1000 young people, the results suggested that most participants viewed civil rights leader Martin Luther King as the greatest leader, followed by US President Barack Obama and former South African President Nelson Mandela (This is a bit more logical…)

The top ten also included England footballer John Terry, actress Joanna Lumley and businessman Alan Sugar.  Simon Cowell won the same percentage of the vote as Mother Teresa, while Moses came equal fifth with Microsoft’s Bill Gates.

The survey was published to mark  a new Government-backed campaign, Youth of Today, aimed at creating a generation of inspirational young leaders. The campaign aims to encourage hundreds of young people to become leaders from sports coaches to public speakers. 

70% of the teenagers who responded to the survey said they were more likely to be inspired by someone they knew than by a celebrity.  Two in three believed there were more celebrities setting a bad example than a good one today.

To find out more about Russell HR Consulting, please contact the team on 0845 644 8955 or find us at www.russellhrconsulting.co.uk