In the current spell of warm weather, and with a prediction that temperatures could reach potentially dangerous levels, you’ve probably already taken steps to ensure the comfort and safety of your employees. Especially if you read our blog about thermal comfort from a few weeks ago.

If you’ve introduced a relaxation of your dress code during the hot weather, then your employees are probably exposing more skin, and consequently more tattoos.

Historically, employers have wielded some control over the exposure of tattoos, and rules about what is acceptable would fall under the organisation’s dress code policy. However, the sheer prevalence of individuals partaking of some permanent body art over recent years has led to something of a rethink by some employers.

Just last month, Virgin Atlantic took the decision to lift its ban on visible tattoos for cabin crew. The move, designed to promote the company’s new ethos of promoting inclusion and ‘championing individuality’, resulted in a 522% increase in searches for cabin-crew jobs with the airline on 1st June, the day the ban was officially lifted.

Statistics vary but some reports say that 30% of people in the UK between 16 and 44 have at least one tattoo. With no signs that the fashion for tattoos is likely to wane in the foreseeable future, you can understand how Virgin Atlantic have realised that rejecting potential employees because they have a tattoo is likely to significantly reduce the available talent pool to fill vacant positions. Something that is particularly relevant in an industry that is showing some fragility since the pandemic.

An organisation’s position on tattoos will probably be a cultural one, and whilst the proliferation of tattoos may make them more socially acceptable in some circles, their visibility will still fall under a company’s dress code. Therefore, it’s important that general standards of personal presentation are clearly communicated to employees.

Notwithstanding Virgin Atlantic’s decision, it’s not unreasonable for a business to maintain that its representatives present themselves to a certain standard. Where staff uniforms are not issued, most of us would expect sales or showroom staff for example to wear a business suit and perhaps a tie or matching skirt and jacket. It would be understandable then for an employer to insist that tattoos remain covered; the effect such a rule has on recruitment is up to the individual company to consider.

Also worthy of consideration is the trend for those who suffer hair loss to have a tattooed hairline and how they might feel about a tattoo ban.

We always advocate that you should employ the most suitable person for the job based on their ability and organisational fit, so it may be more realistic to establish a compromise or an acceptable level of body art. For example, tattoos that can easily be hidden by, say, long sleeves are acceptable whereas facial tattoos, obscenities, or anything likely to offend, are not.

To date, we haven’t heard of any cases where individuals claim to have been discriminated against because they have a tattoo. We’re not aware of any religious or cultural reasons why that might ever be the case. However, studies and anecdotes do indicate that people with visible tattoos find it more difficult to find work. The change of heart by Virgin Atlantic may herald a sea-change in employers’ attitudes more generally.

Visible tattoos will probably remain a subjective topic at least in the short to medium term so your rule of thumb for whatever stance you take is to maintain consistency across all workers and ensure your policy is clearly communicated.

For further help and support about this and other employee matters, call us on 01452 331331 or e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

We recognise that you’re possibly fed up of hearing about the exploits of the Prime Minister this week, but with leadership so inherent in what we do at HR Champions, a closer examination of where Boris has failed in this area is probably justified. Despite multiple MP’s making reference to Boris’s failed leadership over the past few days, mostly as part of their resignation speeches, none have been specific about what’s been wrong with it.

If you’ve ever attended a leadership course or workshop, whether or not it was one of ours, there would very likely have been a discussion regarding the qualities of great leaders. Amongst the suggestions usually offered by delegates are:

• Integrity
• Communication
• Influence
• Empathy
• Courage
• Respect

These are all very valid characteristics, and no-one would argue that Boris is not a great communicator or that he does not excel at influencing others. However, whether he possesses integrity or empathy is seriously up for debate. Recent events, and in particular “Partygate” and the subsequent speculation about whether or not he lied to the Commons, certainly throws a shadow over his sense of honesty.

Another quality that we feel is vital for successful leaders, although does not always appear in suggestions, is Authenticity.

Authentic Leaders act from their values. They will process information and make decisions objectively without bias or prejudice. They are acutely aware how the outcomes of their decision-making affects others and that it must be done with integrity, consistency and clarity. Their self-belief makes them resilient.

An Authentic Leader builds genuine relationships with those they lead and work with. They do not make decisions based on their own self-interest. Honesty and openness are paramount, and they strive to build relationships that engender trust and understanding. Their genuine and selfless behaviour will reinforce the development of trust.

A powerful exercise is to take a step back and ruthlessly examine your own leadership. Are you authentic? Do you truly make decisions and act on what you believe, or are you simply going through the motions and behaving in a certain way to manipulate those you manage? Authentic Leaders will get the best out of others because it is easy and natural to follow and believe in someone who is genuine and acts on their own beliefs.

Insincere and disingenuous behaviour will leak signals that humans have an innate ability to pick up on. Non-authentic leaders will fail because their followers will see through the masquerade. They will spot the signs, even if this happens subliminally, and will gradually, and sometimes suddenly as we have seen during the week’s events, forgo their respect and admiration.

We’ll leave you to make your own decisions about whether Boris was an authentic leader and if it contributed to his demise. In the meantime, to discuss opportunities for developing your own and your teams’ leadership skills, call us on 01452 331331 or e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Giving new employees the best possible early impression of your organisation is vital in order to engage them at the primary stage of their employment, thereby initiating a long and productive relationship. Your induction or onboarding programme therefore, needs to be a thoroughly thought-out and properly executed plan that gets everybody off on the right foot. Also, consider these statistics:

• 51% of candidates will continue looking for roles even after accepting
• 1 in 7 walk away after they have accepted the offer
• 9% have left a company because of poor onboarding experience
• 51% of employees expect HR to check in with them regularly throughout their first year of employment.

We’ve come across numerous businesses that have half-baked or non-existent induction programmes. They find that new recruits don’t hang around for very long and then wonder why their recruitment budget is overspent and through the roof. In such organisations, new starters tend to be thrown in at the deep end in the hope that they will learn both their job and the company culture by osmosis. In reality, this will only engender resentment and most likely a short-lived relationship.

Businesses need to understand that a little investment in time at the outset of employment will pay far higher returns than trying to get a new employee churning out widgets by lunchtime on their first day. With recruitment continuing to present a challenge for employers, the smart businesses know that the induction and onboarding process should be treated as part of the overall recruitment cost.

Your induction programme should cover both the individual’s specific job and information about the wider organisation. Understanding where an individual fits in the wider order of things and how they contribute to the overall business objectives will give them a sense of belonging and value. In some instances, it can be beneficial to allow new employees to spend some time in other departments. Knowing how their own department and individual role impacts other sectors of the business drives empathy for co-workers and promotes a greater ‘one-business’ mentality and avoid any ‘us and them’ internal company politics.

A copy of the company staff handbook should be made available to employees and the induction is a useful time to introduce it and run through some of the key points. For example, clearly explaining the process for reporting for work, booking holidays, reporting absence etc will avoid any embarrassing moments at a later stage.

Describing company culture can be difficult, but just “knowing how things are done around here” is a really big deal. No-one wants to look foolish, so make the assumption that your new employee doesn’t know anything. Even details such as the process for taking/scheduling lunch breaks should be made clear, or that individuals bring in cakes for the whole department on their birthday.

Health and safety will vary across different businesses and industries but if there are any rules that must be followed for legal compliance then the necessary processes to cover these should take priority. There is no excuse for putting an employee or their colleagues in any danger, because you hadn’t got around to the relevant training, or you’d forgotten to order the appropriate equipment or clothing.

For the individual’s job role, there might be a learning curve that lasts a number of weeks. You’ll no doubt have recruited the most suitable candidate but that doesn’t mean they have all of the skills or knowledge required to do their job from day one. They might also need to learn your systems and how to do things the company way.

It might be appropriate to have a training plan as part of the induction that covers the responsibilities of the role. Make sure it’s achievable for the recruit and reasonable for both parties. Review progress very frequently so that it can be adapted as appropriate to the your employee up to speed as soon as possible

Finally, you might consider a ‘buddy’ system for new recruits as part of their induction. Allow then to shadow an existing colleague who can also be a mentor and someone to turn to when there are questions. You might want to choose your buddies carefully to avoid your new employee learning any bad habits or tricks.

Assisting organisations with their induction programmes is part of our portfolio of services. Call us for more information on 01452 331331 or e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Rising temperatures, like those we have experienced this week, usually trigger a question or two about what employers’ responsibilities are when it comes to workplace temperatures. We’re gladly not in the same place we were last year. Under Covid rules, workplace conditions in the warmer weather were exacerbated for many by the requirement to wear PPE.

This year, with Working from Home a much more common feature, the concerns for employers might be more centred around ensuring productivity. Especially when, for home workers in particular, there might be a temptation to make the most of the sunshine at the expense of doing work.

Maximum workplace temperature is a phrase that gets quoted occasionally, but there’s actually no such thing. Instead, the Health and Safety Executive refers to the “thermal comfort” of employees when discussing employers’ legal responsibilities. So, air temperature alone should not be the sole concern. Air flow and humidity are among other factors to consider, as is employees’ own clothing which may be constrained by health and safety requirements.

Employee wellbeing is of course the watchword so taking reasonable steps to fulfil your duty of care should be the default. In most enclosed environments such as an office, factory or warehouse, there are some fairly straightforward measures we can take:

• Ensure airflow through the building is sufficient
• Where possible, open windows and doors or provide fans
• Make drinks readily available and encourage employees to take an extra break
• Consider alternative shift patterns or working hours ie. earlier start and finish times
• Introduce a comfort zone where the temperature can be controlled and allow managed access to it
• Relax the dress code, within reason
• Investigate the possibility of alternative working environments. eg. Another building, outside
• Pay special attention to those at higher risk ie. pregnant or older employees

Some other environments, such as care homes where patient health is of the greatest importance, may require more creativity. Mobile air-conditioning units are much more available these days however the current high cost of electricity and their environmental impact doesn’t always make them the most practical solution.

For those employees who work from home, strictly speaking, a health and safety assessment should already have been undertaken to ensure their work setting meets minimum requirements. It’s likely to be impracticable to make time to appraise every home-worker’s set-up just to account for the arrival of some warmer weather. However, it’s not unreasonable to be aware of certain individuals’ situations that might warrant intervention.

An employee who lives on their own in a flat for example, might find it very difficult to work in their home during spells of oppressive heat. Establishing an alternative place to work, whether that’s back in the office or elsewhere, might be the best move for the employee’s health as well as their productivity.

Let’s also not forget that it’s not just about temperature. The sunshine can also bring with it a higher pollen count, so cases of hayfever, asthma and related illnesses may see an increase for both employees and their children. And we should consider the potential risks of:-

• Dehydration and even Heatstroke
• General irritability leading to conflict with other employees
• Tiredness, resulting in accidents
• Higher stress levels and associated ailments

Whatever the weather, we’re on hand to support with employee issues. Call us on 01452 331331 or e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

When we are called upon by our clients to provide advice regarding a disciplinary or dismissal process for an employee, one of the early questions we will invariably ask is whether the individual in question has any “Protected Characteristics”. These are the triggers for potential claims of discrimination so it’s a good idea to remain mindful of what the protected characteristics are.

You can be certain that any “no-win, no-fee” lawyer will know what they are. With claims for discrimination unlimited, and the record for highest UK award standing at a staggering £4.5 million, it’s easy to understand why.

The grounds for discrimination were originally set out in the Equalities Act 2010. Since the implementation of the act, there have been a few changes and additions to the definitions as the Act has evolved to maintain its fitness for purpose. Protected Characteristics will always be considered by a Tribunal in cases of dismissal.

Discrimination can also occur during the recruitment process. So an individual doesn’t even have to be an employee to make a discrimination claim. This is why it is vital to have a fair and transparent recruitment process.

It’s clear then that eliminating discrimination from the workplace will help businesses to avoid litigious acts that might result in unbearably high awards for compensation against them.

But that’s the negative approach.

A far better way to interpret the spirit of the Equalities Act would be, rather than avoiding discrimination, how about embracing and encouraging inclusivity? It’s widely reported that organisations with inclusive cultures consistently outperform non-diverse businesses; the McKinsey Report suggests by as much as 35%.

Indeed, when enterprises have an inclusive business culture and inclusive policies, the predicted probability of achieving:

• Increased profitability and productivity is 63%
• Enhanced ability to attract and retain talent is 60%
• Greater creativity innovation and openness is 59%
• Enhanced company reputation is 58%
• Better ability to gauge consumer interest/demand is 38%

An inclusive culture recognises that that difference can be a positive force. Having a presence of diversity across a range of employee roles and leadership positions demonstrates the organisations commitment to equality. Being recognised as an inclusive employer widens the reach and therefore the talent pool when recruiting; no bad thing in the current climate of record vacancies.

Equality and diversity training can be seen purely as a ‘tick-box’ exercise for some organisations. A badge to hide behind to avoid vicarious liability should a discrimination claim arise. The danger is that this again concentrates too much on the negative. Instead of focussing on the words and deeds that must be avoided, look more to encouraging individuals to see beyond their perceived limitations of the race, gender, disability, sexual orientation or age of their peers.

Gender Reassignment is one of the protected characteristics detailed in the Equalities Act and forms the basis of our forthcoming seminar. The event will give delegates, for a modest charitable donation, an opportunity to examine and challenge their own organisation’s approach to inclusivity from one aspect that can be applied across the whole spectrum of characteristics.

For further information and support in creating an inclusive culture, and for more information about our seminar, call us on 01452 331331 or e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Supermarket chain Sainsbury’s have recently lost an Employment Tribunal where they found themselves defending a claim of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination after dismissing an employee with an acquired brain injury. We’re taking a closer look at the details of this case because it highlights some procedural failings by the retailer that employers would be advised to take note of.

Mr Kelly worked as a trainee manager for Sainsbury’s since 2000. In 2004, he was involved in a serious road traffic accident which resulted in a brain injury and he was placed in an induced coma for a month, followed by several months in hospital. The injury affected his memory and meant he was unable to continue his management trainee scheme although he remained an employee of Sainbury’s.

Mr Kelly’s behaviour towards some female members of staff was called into question in 2010 after he referred to a colleague in derogatory terms. He received a written warning. As a result, he was referred to an occupational psychologist who found that Mr Kelly’s cognitive functioning and aspects of his working memory were limited. It was confirmed that this had contributed to his behaviour.

At least one other instance of inappropriate behaviour was subsequently recorded against Mr Kelly for which an informal warning was issued against him. In April 2020, Sainsbury’s received a formal complaint from an employee who accused Mr Kelly of calling her derogatory names and of groping her and rubbing her shoulders. The accusing employee also alleged that other colleagues had suffered similar behaviour.

An investigation was undertaken but no action was taken. This was appealed by the complainant however and a store manager from another branch re-investigated. The result of this second investigation was that Mr Kelly should face disciplinary action. During investigation, Mr Kelly could not recall any of the behaviour he was accused of.

Following a number of other accusations, including one through the company’s own whistleblowing hotline, Mr Kelly was invited to a disciplinary hearing in July 2020 and was dismissed. He appealed the dismissal citing his own health and wellbeing and the effects of his car accident in 2004, but his claim was rejected. During the proceedings, it transpired that Sainsbury’s had also failed to give Mr Kelly evidence, including witness statements before his disciplinary hearing to enable him to build a case for his defence.

The manager conducting the appeal hearing suggested that it would have been unreasonable to expect the manager who carried out the investigation to take into account the car accident as it had happened 16 years previously. He stated that Mr Kelly’s behaviour was not in line with Sainsbury’s harassment or fair treatment policies.

The Employment Tribunal found that Mr Kelly’s behaviour, which was undoubtedly inappropriate and did go against Sainsbury’s polices, came about as a result of his disability which he acquired in his accident. By subjecting him to disciplinary proceedings and dismissal, the Tribunal ruled that Sainsbury’s had treated him unfavourably.

It appears that Sainsbury’s made some glaring omissions in their own procedures during this case.

Making investigation evidence available to the subject, prior to a disciplinary hearing is an absolute basic rule. We often talk about the importance of following procedure and this is a good example of how every single step needs to be taken. Had it only come to light at the disciplinary hearing that the evidence had not been made available then the hearing should have been adjourned and rescheduled for at least 48 hours in the future.

Secondly, failing to take Mr Kelly’s disability into account is pretty much a slam-dunk for disability discrimination. Despite the fact that his accident had taken place some years ago, the consequences on Mr Kelly had not gone away. The investigating managers should have taken the occupational psychologists report into account and, as it was 16 years old, should probably have commissioned a new one so that decisions were made on the very latest evidence and understanding of Mr Kelly’s condition.

The tribunal found that Kelly was discriminated against because of his disability and was unfairly dismissed.

Whilst it is possible to purchase insurance that will cover the cost of legal representation at Employment Tribunal, at HR Champions, our policy is to help our clients take the right steps and appropriate action to avoid getting anywhere near a Tribunal claim in the first place. For information about how we can support your businesses contact us on 01452 331331 or via e-mail on This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

We’ve taken some calls to the helpline recently from employers asking for support in managing their ‘Millennial’ employees. In particular, it seems there have been noises around bullying behaviour by managers when these individuals are asked to fulfil their roles. So, does this class of individuals require special management arrangements or is it something more fundamental.

The term ‘Millennials’ relates to those who were born during the ascension of the Internet. They have always known a connected world with constant online access, broadband, smart phones and social media. Studies in recent years have highlighted the differences in attitude towards work displayed by millennials vs those from older generations.

With instant access to information being the norm, our research suggests that this new breed of worker expects a job to offer varied and interesting duties, rapid career progression and constant, positive feedback.

Whilst we might expect the outlook of younger people to be influenced by their (lack of) responsibilities, millennials do seem to take a different stance towards their motivation for work than we may be used to. In more than one survey that we looked at, a good salary comes after work-life balance and opportunity for progression. Moreover, millennials don’t necessarily expect to stay in the same job or with the same employer for an extended period as we might expect those of the “baby boomer” generation to have done. Millennials expect to have more jobs of relatively short periods.

The prolificacy of the Internet and social media has also seemed to have manufactured a need for an expectation of immediacy. Access to information and knowledge of just about everything is at our fingertips in seconds, and this seems to have influenced how quickly millennials expect to see praise, reward and recognition.

The employers who might benefit the most from the millennial workforce are those who form a strategy for employing them. With information so readily available, experience may not be such a big measure of a candidate’s suitability for a role as their ability to source, access and apply the knowledge to do it. After all there are videos on YouTube that demonstrate how to do just about everything from computer coding to plumbing.

Notwithstanding, there are some crucial steps that employers should be taking when recruiting employees, regardless of their generation, in order to lay a firm foundation upon which to build an understanding of management practices and job role expectations. These include:

• A thorough company induction that engenders engagement with the organisation’s vision, values and ethos
• An induction to the position that clearly sets out what good likes and is accompanied by a clear job description
• Providing clarity around targets, objectives and expected job outcomes
• Regular one-to one meetings to discuss performance outcomes and any barriers faced by the individual in delivering their objectives
• A properly communicated, and celebrated probationary sign-off
• Continued regular performance discussions and one-to-ones so that performance feedback never comes out of the blue or is a surprise to the individual

Potentially we might expect millennials to expect this sort of approach anyway as they have always existed in a world where feedback is almost instant and constant, however the above outlines a strategy that should apply to all new recruits, regardless of their generation. Whilst it may appear novel to some employers, it is an approach that is recognised as being key to engendering employee engagement behaviour.

One obstacle to this approach however might come from managers who have difficulty in delivering the strategy, especially where they fear that some of the conversation might be considered ‘difficult’. Some appropriate training in this area should overcome this and prove more than cost effective.

With record employment in the UK, a more meaningful recruitment strategy might be on the agenda for some employers. Our talent management seminar is running in June but for bespoke help and support with your recruitment strategy, call us on 01452 331331 or via e-mail on This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Where settlement agreements would historically come up maybe a couple of times per year, we have recently handled several in just a few weeks. Since the lifting of Covid restrictions and employees returning to the workplace, we’ve noticed a steady rise in the number of clients enquiring about them.

There has been a widely reported shift in working attitudes since Covid, with many employees fighting to remain working from home, often against their employers wishes; and others re-evaluating their work-life balance altogether. With some individual’s workplace issues lying dormant during their time working from home, the return to the workplace has re-activated certain feelings and behaviours creating conflict and tension for which both employer and employee are looking for a quick fix.

Designed to be a quick fix arrangement between an employer and an employee to settle a workplace dispute, one of the main points of a settlement agreement is that the employee will forgo the option to make a tribunal claim regarding the incident that has given rise to the settlement being made. Usually, this surrender of rights is made in return for a financial settlement and the promise that the matter is finally put to bed.

Whilst a settlement agreement can be a good way to circumvent what might otherwise be a drawn out disciplinary or performance management process, we don’t recommend that they should be seen as an alternative to either and should only be considered under certain circumstances. They are not a substitute for good working practices; nor are they the default position for when management fails.

Consider that a monetary settlement will be involved that the employer must be prepared to negotiate and pay, and that coming to one settlement may open the floodgates of other employees expecting the same. There is also the danger that an employer will get a reputation for simply ‘paying off’ problematic employees.

A 'without prejudice' conversation relating to a settlement agreement can be started at any time by either an employer or an employee, but it must be done properly so as not to influence or prejudice any future events or decisions. Discussions should include payment arrangements, how the employment will be terminated (if this is an outcome) and any terms of an employer reference.

Once an agreement has been reached it must be put in writing and the employee given adequate time to consider it; usually ten days. The employee should also be advised to seek independent legal advice to have the terms of the settlement clearly and unambiguously explained to them. The cost of this advice should be met by the employer.

Once concluded, the employee has effectively given up any option to claim for unfair dismissal, provided this is detailed in the settlement agreement, so make sure that all loose ends are tied up. Also remember that some dismissals are automatically classed as unfair if they relate to an employee exercising specific rights relating to pregnancy or whistleblowing for example so don’t try to use a settlement agreement in those cases.

Although settlement agreements usually conclude an individual’s employment within a company, they don’t have to. A settlement agreement could be used to settle a dispute over an employee’s holiday perhaps, or an in-work benefit.

As mentioned, settlement agreements should only really be considered as a last resort, but if you do need advice about implementing one you can call us on 01452 331331 or via e-mail on This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

As we endure the current cost of living crisis, exacerbated by record high fuel prices, the war in Ukraine and a predicted continued upward trend in interest rates, most employers will want to support their employees as much as they possibly can. Despite best intentions however, it’s unlikely that many businesses will be able to afford pay rises high enough to put much of a dent in the effects of inflation, which last month was recorded at 7%.

With job vacancies still hovering at a record high of about 1.2million, many employees are fully aware that they currently weald a lot of leverage over their employers when it comes to demanding ever-higher pay increases. Moreover, this extends beyond the more traditionally specialised roles and industries such as IT, Digital Technologies and medical. We’re seeing signs that the hospitality and care sectors are equally being pressured into paying higher wages to recruit and retain workers.

A significant influencing factor of this issue is the ease with which individuals are able to compare their earnings with that of other, similar positions; or at least positions with similar job titles. Recruitment websites such as Indeed, make it very easy for employees to scan vacancies and compare their salaries with those on offer from recruiting companies.

Armed with this information they then feel empowered to insist that their existing employer match their pay to that of the positions on offer. The idea of losing an experienced member of staff, coupled with expected recruitment costs and the lag in productivity whilst a new recruit is brought up to speed can be enough for an employer to relent and meet the demands.

The knock-on effect is that businesses now have to increase prices to meet their higher wage bill, which in turn are passed on to consumers, stoking the flames of inflation and leading to more wage demands. Thus creating a vicious circle that continues to drive inflation.

Amongst all of this is the added wages inflation that is derived from our fixation with job titles.

Many people attach a lot of status and prestige to their job title, and that’s fair enough. People should feel proud of their achievements and of the position they hold within an organisation. However, whilst job titles can be very similar, or even identical in different businesses, the actual duties, responsibilities and accountabilities can be poles apart.

It’s only when we drill down into a job description which details the roles and responsibilities of a particular job that we can draw any meaningful comparisons. However, this may not be properly and thoroughly investigated when an employee demands more pay because they have seen the “same job” at another organisation paying £5,000 more. In other words, although the job title is the same, the duties might be very different meaning we may not be truly measuring like for like.

Equally, when recruiting, it can be a mistake to rely on job title alone. Job roles tend to evolve with an organisation, so even though you might have clearly designed duties for your own payroll manager for example, when recruiting for a new one, you must be clear of the duties and levels of responsibility you are expecting a new recruit to work to.

And this works both ways. Someone currently employed as a marketing assistant may have the skills and knowledge that you would attribute to a marketing manager, and so shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.

Clear and comprehensive job descriptions are clearly something that employers should be striving to maintain if they want to recruit at the correct level and well as keep a check on what their employees think they are worth. Job descriptions should be living documents that evolve with the position and are kept up to date to reflect duties and levels of accountability.

You can hear more about effective job descriptions at our forthcoming Talent Management seminar in June and if you would like a discussion around your job descriptions, we’re available on 01452 331331 or via e-mail on This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

A recent Employment Tribunal has found in favour of a female employee who claimed she had been sexually discriminated against by her boss who frequently referred to her as “good girl” and harassed her to change her profile images on social media to ones in which she looked more attractive [to her boss]. The tribunal dismissed the defence that the behaviour was merely banter; a point that we should all take note of.

In his summing up in the case of Ms Frances Fricker vs Gartner UK Ltd, the Tribunal judge said “Language evolves over time. Words and phrases that might once have seemed harmless are now regarded as racial, homophobic and sexist slurs.” This is something we already know of course, but this case brings it once again to the fore.

If you really want to read the full case records you can do so here, but it’s not the finer details of this particular case that we’re interest in here. Instead, we want to highlight two significant points that come from it:

• We must be fully aware of the language we use and any potential discomfort, distress or offence that it may cause to others
• A culture of what might be described as “laddish” behaviour is strewn with potential pitfalls and should be monitored to ensure no individuals are adversely affected

Banter is only banter if everyone is truly involved in it and there is no target or victim. Even then, some individuals may join in because they are afraid of being singled out or becoming a target if they demonstrate or voice that they are uncomfortable or don’t agree with what is being said or implied.

As the judge in this case went on to say, “Some phrases, whilst not regarded as taboo, are generally regarded as inappropriate in the workplace. Referring to a woman in her late-30s with a school-age child as a girl is demeaning.”
Decerning what and what does not cross the banter line can be a tricky thing to do. Retaining an upbeat and light-hearted atmosphere in the workplace is usually in the employer’s interest as it means employees are happy, productive and want to come into work. Managers need to be wary however that no individual is consistently the butt of jokes and comments to the point that the banter degrades into bullying.

Employers have a duty of care to provide a safe and comfortable environment for workers, so if there is any inkling that an individual is uncomfortable with comments made “in jest”, then it’s incumbent on that person’s manager to take them to one side and give them the opportunity to be frank and honest about their feelings and to ensure that they are not offended.

Remember too that individuals can be affected indirectly by comments and events. So, whilst a laddish comment made amongst an all-male group of similar backgrounds may appear innocent amongst those present, we may not know what friends or relations people within that group have have. Furthermore, this applies to any group of similar individuals, regardless of gender, race etc.

We constantly advise employers and business owners to regularly review whether their Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity (EDI) policies are alive and kicking or are simply a tick-box exercise gathering dust on a shelf somewhere. Now seems like a good time to raise it again.

The Fricker vs Gartner case is in line with other socially aware changes we are seeing, and employers need to ensure that leaders and senior managers are role modelling appropriate behaviours, holding others to account and genuinely striving to create a truly inclusive work environment for all.

As usual, we're here to support with your organisation's own EDI policies and practices or if you just want to talk through the trends and changes that we're seeing in the world of employment and HR. If there is anything you need support and guidance with then please get in touch on 01452 331331 and This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.