You may have been made aware of a report that was published this week that examines the cost of workplace conflict. Commissioned by ACAS, the report specifically tries to highlight the impact that workplace conflict has on businesses by allocating a monetary value to it. It estimates that the total annual cost to UK employers is a staggering £28.5 billion.

Whilst we think that the some of the assumptions drawn by the report to reach that figure are somewhat overzealous at times, it does validate the point that the failure to manage workplace conflict is a source of ongoing financial distress for businesses. It’s a message we’ve pretty much had on repeat since HR Champions has been in existence; along with some solutions of course.

According to the report’s estimate, the number of people who resign from a job as a result of conflict is 485,000 each year. It goes on to suggest that a large bulk of the estimated cost to business is made up of recruiting replacement employees, and more significantly, in the lost productivity whilst those new recruits get up to speed with their work.

The number of employees who take sickness absence as a result of conflict is estimated at 874,000 per year and the lost productivity from this group also contributes significantly to the overall cost to business.
The report also allocates a cost to those who continue to work but who’s productivity suffers from the effects of anxiety, stress and depression as a result of conflict. However, we feel this amount may rely too heavily on self-diagnosis of mental health conditions rather than upon recognised professional judgment.

One of the main points raised by the report to explain the occurrence of conflict is that very often managers and supervisors simply aren’t equipped with the skills to effectively handle a conflict situation. We would probably agree. It’s long been our observation that individuals get promoted into a position of management or supervision because they are good at doing their jobs rather than because they are good at managing people. “Your best salesman will be your worst sales manager” is an adage we frequently use.

Conflict arises for a variety of reasons and we can’t expect to be able to overcome all of the motives behind it. A basic clash of personalities is a typical example. However, we can take steps to manage the occurrences of conflict and also to minimise and mitigate its impact when it does occur.

If conflict arises, individuals must have a channel and/or route where they can discuss issues without any fear of reprisals or fear that the very fact they are reporting something will have a detrimental effect on their position or relationships within the organisation. Early communication is key and the beneficial effects of keeping matters informal cannot be overstated.

As soon as a formal grievance is initiated the chances of reaching an outcome where all parties walk away feeling happy and satisfied are minimal. Either the grievance will be upheld, and the “offender” will suffer some form of consequence which could include dismissal. Or the grievance is not upheld and the person raising the grievance is left feeling disgruntled and aggrieved. They may then decide their position is untenable, resign from the company and in the worst cases apply to an Employment Tribunal for Constructive Dismissal.

Cultivating an environment where employees feel that they can openly discuss issues in order to find resolutions should be an aspiration of all businesses. In addition to the financial benefits of retaining staff, a culture of talking issues through to find resolutions will filter into all aspects of the business; improving working practices, productivity and ultimately profit.

Publicising an “open door” policy is only effective if it is truly lived and breathed throughout the organisation and mangers and leaders are prepared to actively listen to the issues of their employees and take action. Mediating between employees is quite a skill in but making the effort to find common ground will be rewarding on many levels.

Role modelling from the top down is key to creating an environment where staff feel comfortable giving and receiving 360° feedback.

Conflict resolution modules exist in a number of our Leadership and Management courses and if you wanted a stand-alone course for your own team we would be more than happy to provide you with a quote. It would pay for itself many times over. If you find yourself dealing with a grievance, we can help with that too. Either way, call on 01452 331331 or e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

A couple of months ago, we covered the subject of whether or not businesses and organisations could mandate that employees receive the Covid vaccination. It was the hot topic at that time and you can see that post, and watch the presentation from our consultant Owen Lee here https://hrchampions.co.uk/covid-19/covid-the-vaccine-conundrum-277

Since then, the conversation has moved on and the latest question echoing around employers seems to be “Can I insist that employees take a Covid test?”.

Interestingly, this question is a little more nuanced than the vaccination question, and there’s no clear yes or no answer. Some may argue that stipulating a testing regime could be seen as invasive on a personal level, or potentially non-enforceable from a contractual point of view. There are fair arguments on both sides of the table, so it calls for a balanced approach.

Employers have a duty of care towards all of their employees and creating a safe working environment comes pretty high up the list. Lateral Flow tests are now free to order on the NHS and so as part of your return-to-the-workplace programme and/or your ongoing Covid safety regime, you might ask employees to test themselves on a regular basis. Perhaps a couple of times a week before putting themselves in a position where they will come into contact with colleagues or customers.

We would expect most employees to accept that some form of testing schedule may become part of our way of life, at least for a while, and so accept it in good spirit. Issues may arise however if staff members insist that they do not want to self-test or if you make testing, and returning a negative result, a conditional element of coming to work.

Making testing compulsory opens the “change of contractual terms” can of worms. If testing isn’t in your employees’ contracts, and it probably won’t be if you don’t work in care, making it conditional would be a change of terms for which a period of consultation would be required. You may already have a drug and alcohol testing policy in your staff handbook, but testing for infection is somewhat different.

As already mentioned, most people will understand and graciously accept self-testing, but what happens if they forget, run out of time or run out of tests? Is it acceptable to stop an employee coming to work because they were running late or had to drop the kids off before their test result had fully developed?

You could keep test kits at the place of work, but consider that you may have to pay staff whilst they sit idly around waiting for the results?

You may have members of your team who have to visit clients’ premises; engineers or delivery drivers perhaps. If your clients are insisting on negative tests before coming on site, you’ll probably be in a stronger position to enforce. There has already been a widely publicised case where a delivery driver was deemed to have been fairly dismissed after he failed to wear a mask when making a delivery to a Tayte & Lyle site.

Refusal to test then may mean you are unable to provide work for your employees leaving you with little option but to consider dismissal.

For those staff who usually work at a single premise such as an office or factory, it may be more difficult to insist upon testing where you have no recourse for refusal to test. Staff could work from home where that is practical, but is that fair on colleagues who may also prefer to work from home? You may also have staff who refuse to work with non-testers, exacerbating an already fraught position.

The deeper we delve for an answer, the more questions we seem to unearth. As with the vaccine question, encouraging staff and reaching an agreement to test is going to be the best approach. However there will always be a handful of cases where it’s less straightforward or individuals refuse to test because it enables them to manipulate a situation to their own advantage.

If and when this happened, we recommend make a judgement on a case by case basis. We’re here to help with that of course. Just call us on 01452 331331 or e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Last week, 39 former Postmasters had their criminal convictions for theft and false accounting overturned by the Court of Appeal. They were amongst 736 Post Office Workers who were wrongly prosecuted by the Post Office between 2000 and 2014 for such allegations following the installation of a new accounting system, called Horizon, in 1999.

The court ruling highlights a culture of blame and arrogance that was, and arguably is, endemic within the Post Office, and that led to the most widespread, known, miscarriage of justice in the UK.
All organisations would do well to pay attention to the lessons that can be learned from this case in order to avoid any similar behaviour and failure towards their employees and associates.

To briefly précis the story, in 1999, the Post Office rolled out a new computer-based accounting system called Horizon, installing it in post offices up and down the country. Horizon was meant to simplify the lives of postmasters by replacing what was a largely paper-based system for recording stock, sales and transactions.

Soon after its installation, some postmasters started recording discrepancies in their accounting. Shortfalls started showing and the money for thousands of pounds worth of transactions could not be accounted for. For some, this started amounting to tens of thousands of pounds. The Post Office blamed the postmasters for these shortfalls, holding them personally responsible and demanding that the money be repaid.

Despite their protestations, some were forced into serious debt to repay the money, taking out loans and even re-mortgaging their property. Marriages broke down and some say the stress led to health conditions, addiction and premature deaths. Many postmasters were prosecuted and some even ended up being sent to prison. In short, many innocent lives were ruined.

* * * * *

The Post Office has its own Prosecution Department that pre-dates the Police. It can be traced back to 1683 and was formed partly to combat highwaymen. The presence of this department presents a significant conflict of interest as it means the Post Office is the prosecutor, the victim and the investigator of an alleged offence.

Consequently, throughout all of the prosecutions, at no time was the validity of the Horizon computer system ever doubted or bought into question. Indeed, the Post Office continuously stressed how robust the system was. Neither was it questioned why hundreds of previously reliable and law-abiding people suddenly became alleged criminals. The focus was entirely on retrieving the “missing” money.

This failure to question the Horizon system, to eliminate it as a potential contributing factor to the high number of people being investigated, is characteristic of an organisation that believes itself to be beyond reproach. A thorough and impartial investigation is the cornerstone of any action involving an employee. The one-eyed approach of the Post Office totally dissolved any trust.

We must question the leadership at the Post Office during the fourteen-year period that the prosecutions took place. The prosecutions were high profile and MPs had been alerted to the plight of some of the Postmasters. An independent review had been commissioned but this was then scrapped when it looked as though the result might leave the Post Office exposed.

In 2012, Paula Vennells was appointed Chief Executive of the Post Office. Here at last it seemed was an opportunity to sweep clean and have a fresh pair of eyes look into the situation. Ms Vennells wasn’t party to the implementation of Horizon back in 1999 and her new appointment presented an excellent opportunity to make good the errors of the past.

During our Leadership & Management training courses at HR Champions, we ask delegates to describe the characteristics of great leaders. Across different training courses and cohorts, some words come up time and again; typically:

• Integrity
• Courage
• Authenticity
• Honesty
• Fairness
• Inquisitiveness
• Resilience
• Empathy

Sadly, none of these qualities appear to have been present at the Post Office. Ms Vennells towed the corporate line and stuck to the position that there was no fault in the Horizon system. It seems, even as the evidence continued to stack up against the Post Office, there was a fear that the organisation would “lose face” if it now admitted that Horizon was flawed.

Following the Court of Appeals ruling, Ms Vennells quit her posts on the boards of Dunelm and Morrisons. There are now calls for her to be stripped of her CBE title which she was awarded for services to the Post Office and to charity.

It would be wrong to assume that the issues presented here could only ever be found in large organisations such as the Post Office. There are occasions when quite modestly sized businesses can be guilty of taking a maverick or bullish approach over how it handles situations involving employees and even customers. We’ve been called in on more than one occasion to deal with the aftermath.

Remaining objective in such circumstances, although difficult at times is key. Whilst acting in the best interest of the organisation remains primary, it cannot be done with a blinkered approach that leaves a business exposed to more serious consequences further down the line. Culture comes from the top down and the behaviour exhibited by board members and senior managers filters down throughout any organisation. We need to make sure that our culture reflects our values.

We can help in the development of your own organisation’s values and culture. Start a conversation with us now on 01452 331331 or email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

NB. The BBC have an excellent documentary about the history of this case available to listen to via the BBC Sounds app. Well worth a listen. Just search "The Great Post Office Trial" in the app.

We’ve probably all come to accept that life is never going to return completely to how it was. There is plenty of talk and predictions over what the new normal will look like and there is also much hankering over getting back to the normal that we once knew just a year or so ago.

So far, as the roadmap out of lockdown gradually unfolds and more businesses and employees come back to the workplace, our message would be, “be careful what you wish for!”.

Despite some business being back at work for just a few weeks, we are already seeing a reprisal of disputes, claims and grievance issues that employers must deal with. As we find our feet in the new normal, there seem to be some individuals who want the best of both worlds; the flexibility of working in a new and innovative way whilst maintaining strict adherence to their employee rights. A bitter pill for the employers who had done their upmost to keep a business afloat and the employees in a job for the past year.

Without wishing to be pessimists, we’ve compiled what we think are the top hot-spots that employers will be facing over the coming months:

Redundancy and subsequent fallout: We expect a moment of truth for many businesses over the coming weeks and months. As the economy and the marketplace stabilises and the reduction in furlough support starts to bite, it’s going to be time to make those tough decisions that have been kicked down the road during lockdown. Once the effect of Covid on customer behaviour is assessed and understood, workforce planning will result in retraining and hiring for some but redundancy for others. If you’re affected by the latter, ensure your process is flawless to overt the risk of any claims.

Variation of contract: If you’ve put your staff on furlough at any stage then you’ve effectively already done this and should have had it agreed in writing. We provided a letter template for staff on furlough. Going forward, judging by media coverage, a lot of business are going to have to deal with contract variations as staff request new working arrangements. This could be new hours or working from home more. Variations to contract should be mutually agreed and in some cases preceded by a flexible working request. For businesses that have decided to close their offices and impose home working on their staff then some form of consultation should have been part of that process. Again, get new terms and conditions clearly laid out and agreed in writing.

Tribunal Claims: With job losses we expect Tribunal claims. No matter how good our processes and how well we follow procedure, we can’t stop employees submitting tribunal claims. As it is effectively free to do, if you’re a disgruntled employee who feels hard done by, you might just take a “what have I got to lose?” attitude in the hope of getting a payout. We hope that pre-tribunal judgements will throw out the spurious claims but it’s no guarantee. Following procedure and keeping everything appropriately documented to a water-tight standard will mitigate the risk. Don’t be the one that gets caught out because you cut corners.

Return of the SAR: We are seeing more cases of vexatious Subject Access Requests. A disgruntled employee may know they have been dismissed fair and square but they might also know the potential grief and turmoil submitting a SAR will bring. For any organisation, the resources and time it can take to respond can have a significant impact on productivity as it detracts from normal day to day tasks. Imagine having to collate all documentation and communications that reference an individual including Email, Teams, Twitter, WhatsApp, Slack or any other platform; not to mention hard copy notes and personal files. Imagine then having to redact all of that information so that no-one else’s personal information is compromised. It could be a truly mammoth job. Whilst we would like to see some legal ruling against vexatious SAR requests, we recommend that in line with GDPR rules it really is worth only holding the information that you really need and securely disposing of anything you don’t.

Getting on top of all of these issues and ensuring you have robust policies and procedure in place may seem like it’s even more work to do on top of everything that Covid is throwing at us. But think of the consequences of not doing it and the hassle and headache that will bring.

We’re on hand to lend support of course and we’re just a phone call or email away on 01452 331331 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

One of the positive side-effects of the Covid experience has been that there has been less general illness in the UK workforce. Or, in Office of National Statistics speak, a reduction in working days lost to sickness absence. In fact, 2020 shows the lowest sickness absence rate, just 1.8%, since the data time series began in 1995.

Of course social distancing, shielding, working from home and furlough have all contributed to this reduction and we’re all washing our hands more often, sanitising and wearing masks. Coming out of lockdown however there will be more social interaction and therefore opportunity to spread illness. Also, just being back at work, out and about more and returning to sports is likely to lead to more personal physical injury, incapacitating workers.

With the Working from Home option looking as though it’s going to become an acceptable norm for many organisations, albeit to varying degrees, are businesses geared up and prepared to manage sickness absence in the post Covid world?

Surprisingly, there is no legal requirement for an employee to notify his or her employer that they will not be attending work due to sickness or injury. Instead, this would be a contractual obligation that is specified in an absence policy and would usually appear in the organisation’s staff handbook. Whilst it’s pretty standard practice for an employee to call in to their line manager if they’re sick, what is the expectation of staff who are working from home?

We’ve discussed previously how, with working from home becoming more prevalent, we might see a shift towards measuring productivity rather than hours in the office as a way to gauge employee contribution. There will be little incentive then for an individual to declare themselves absent if they feel they can still get their work done. Especially as declaring themselves as off sick will mean they are likely to suffer financially.

Historically, it’s accepted that if you’re not fit for work then you don’t come in. But if a member of staff, whilst unwell, can still drag themselves in front of their computer screen, they may consider themselves to be at fit enough for work. They may not be very productive, but if they’re in “attendance” then they’re probably going to expect to be paid.

On the other hand, if we are indeed measuring productivity, does the employee open themselves up for a performance discussion if they have not declared themselves sick, but their output suffers.

The complexity of this issue deepens further still when we involve the concept of presenteeism. You have doubtless heard reports that employees work harder and longer when at home because they feel they have something to prove. This in itself is self-defeating as over-work can be a contributor to stress and burnout which falls under the classification of Mental Health Conditions, one of the four main reasons for sickness absence in the UK for 2020; the top four being:

• minor illnesses (26.1%) - coughs, colds and flu; sickness, nausea and diarrhoea
• other conditions (17.1%) – the advised category for reporting coronavirus related illness
• musculoskeletal problems (15.4%) – back pain and limb problems
• mental health conditions (11.6%)

The danger is then that presenteeism contributes to sickness and health issues even when there is no requirement to be physically present.

It’s clear that absence policy and procedure will have to be updated to be enforceable and effective in the post-Covid working environment. As organisations settle into a routine over the coming months, we’re likely to see many such polices re-written to enable business to maintain robust and sensible management practices.

If you’re ready for a review of your policies and procedures, we can offer advice and support to ensure you’re covering all of the angles. Call us on 01452 331331 or e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

For over 12 months now we’ve been living and working in the most unpredictable of environments; one where the rules, at times, seem to have changed almost daily. We have had to learn to accept change on a huge scale and with home-working becoming the norm for very many of us, we’ve become more relaxed about dress-code and keeping to strict start and finish times.

At times like this, it can be very tempting and all too easy to take a more relaxed approach about some of the other rules and procedures that govern our behaviour in the workplace. So, on the brink of hairdressers, gyms, non-essential retail and outdoor hospitality re-opening, it’s a good time to remind ourselves about the importance of procedure and of maintaining certain policies and protocols.

Take disciplinary and grievance procedures for example which is probably the most commonly short-circuited policy. Just this week there was a case of a firefighter who was awarded over £12,000 at Tribunal following his dismissal. Not because his dismissal was unjust or unfair; indeed, the Tribunal stated that his actions warranted dismissal. But because the fire service that he worked for had failed to follow the Acas code of practice by leaving it too long, four months in actual fact, to hear his appeal.

By law, your disciplinary and grievance policy must be readily available for scrutiny by any employee and should ordinarily reside within your staff handbook. Make sure that your procedure is clear and unambiguous and plainly states the various levels of disciplinary action which is usually verbal warning through to dismissal.

All disciplinary matters should undergo a fair investigation in the first instance, and this would normally be carried out by a line manager. The investigation should gather all relevant evidence and interviews should be held with all involved parties and with anyone who is able to provide evidence for the case. This may be any number of employees or just the subject of the disciplinary matter. Under current restrictions, it’s fine to hold these interviews via Zoom or Teams.

You are still in the process of investigating at this stage, so for the disciplinary subject there is no right of representation. Moreover, you need to be very clear that no conclusion has been reached at this stage otherwise you may be accused of pre-judging the situation.

Once your investigation is concluded and if some form of discipline is required, you may then call the subject to a disciplinary meeting. You must give reasonable notice of a disciplinary meeting and we recommend at least 48 hours.

At the disciplinary stage the subject may be accompanied by a representative. Unless your policy states otherwise, and we recommend that it doesn’t, the employee’s representative may only be a work colleague or an “appointed representative” of a trade union; not simply a trade union member. If the employee chooses not to be represented make sure he or she is aware of their right and have this minuted.

Employees have a right to appeal any disciplinary decision and, unlike the case above, this should be heard in a timely manner and by someone at least equal in status to the disciplining officer.

Because of the difficult conversations that are usually involved it’s easy to see why disciplinary and grievance procedures are often carried it poorly, consequently becoming costly. However, you should apply rigour in all policies, procedures and processes. Redundancy, recruitment and Health & Safety are probably the most obvious, but failure in any can incur a cost.

Luckily we’re here to help and assisting with, attending and carrying out thinks like disciplinary procedures and redundancy processes for our clients is something we do a lot of. For help and support you can call us on 01452 331331 or e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

If you’ve been on one of our Leadership and Management training courses before, you’re probably already familiar with Tuckman’s Model. We mention it often and we’ve written about it on this blog previously. Simply put, Tuckman’s Model is a characterisation of the process that teams go through to reach a stage where that team becomes productive; as established by psychologist Bruce Tuckman in the 1960’s.

It’s relevant today because it’s likely that many teams will experience Tuckman’s Model, or a variation of it, as employees return to the workplace after Covid.

The stages of establishing a productive team, as described by Dr Tuckman are: Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing with a further stage of Adjourning latterly added. Below we’ve amended the traditional description for each stage of the model to reflect the challenges that organisations are likely to face considering the influences of the Covid and lockdown factors.

Forming: Ordinarily this stage describes when a team has just come together. Individuals are polite if perhaps a little reserved with one another as they learn and understand others’ job roles, ways of working and personalities. After lockdown we can expect this stage to be more about re-familiarisation as team members will most probably already know one another. However it’s likely that Covid will have forced a need for change in job roles as well as working practices so how the team fits together may have to be re-learned. There may also be new starters who will have the added task of learning and understanding the culture of the organisation. Insecurity and/or lack of clarity could create friction. In all scenarios, this is a crucial time for leaders to demonstrate strong guidance.

Storming: This is commonly a phase where conflict arises as team members now have the measure of one another and some push for supremacy or dominance. After becoming accustomed to a relaxed and sometimes solitary working from home environment, team members may struggle to accommodate others’ working styles and processes, leading to frustration. Leaders may find their authority challenged, particularly if previous rules and processes have waned or if new guidelines are still quite experimental and flexible whilst they become established. Storming can also occur when a new member joins a stable team and the dynamic shifts. This may be the result of a re-shuffle or new shift pattern necessitated by Covid and members must once again establish themselves and their positions.

Norming: Teams eventually become settled, differences resolve and individuals understand theirs and colleagues’ roles including any changes implemented to achieve the new normal. The chain of command is established and we move to a position where we see some real progress in attaining the team’s goals. Members will revert to relying on one another and feel able to ask for help from others. Depending on the vaccine rollout and Government hospitality restrictions, there may be opportunity for social interactions and friendships re-forming. It can take a while to reach the norming stage, however some teams have been here before so it may not be such an uphill battle. Furthermore, we’ve gone through 12months of constant and at times quite dramatic changes, the experience of which may help team members adapt quickly and reach the norming stage sooner.

Performing: Eventually we should get to a stage where the team is achieving what it was set up to do and should accomplish this without conflict or resistance. A sign that the team has reached this stage is when it continues to function effectively in the absence of its leader. A performing team should be able to continue effectively even if team members come and go or new challenges are presented that it can overcome autonomously.

Adjourning: This stage can occur if the team was set up to complete a specific task which it achieves and is subsequently disbanded. It can also occur when outside influences cause the team to be restructured or broken apart. Many teams would have experienced this phase over the last 12 months when Covid restrictions affected their organisation or workplace. This can be a difficult stage for some people, especially when strong friendships have been formed, and very probably contributed to cases of mental health issues during lockdown; which is why it is sometimes referred to as “mourning”.

We shouldn’t make the mistake of thinking things will just go back to the way they were before and everything will just pick up where we left off. We should be prepared for people’s attitudes and approaches to have changed over the last 12 months and this will affect the way they interact with other team members. Remember some people may have lost loved ones to the pandemic or been seriously ill themselves.

Like everything else we’ve been through this last year, returning to work and reforming teams is going to be a new experience, so Tuckman’s Model won’t be an exact fit. However, recognising that your team is likely to go through some process that is similar to it will make your management more effective as it will enable you to implement tactics to progress to the performing stage more quickly.

Tuckman’s model is discussed in a number of our Leadership & management courses, and you can still attend these for free if your business is in Worcestershire, Swindon & Wiltshire, Bristol and now Somerset & Devon.

Effective leadership is required more than ever to integrate teams back into the workplace, working together and moving through the model to be at the very least norming, but ideally performing.

Remember, we can also support you with team management and associated documents including Contracts of Employment and Staff Handbooks. Call us on 01452 331331 or e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Bolstered by a truly amazing vaccine rollout, and notwithstanding a couple of potential glitches this week, the country is forging ahead with its roadmap out of lockdown. It still seems however that most businesses haven’t really got to the bottom of what the workplace will look like. The shape that “The New Normal” will take continues to be a subject of wide-ranging debate.

The effect of lockdown has been very different for different businesses and industries. There has been a wealth of stories about businesses that have decided to do away with their office space altogether after realising that, with staff now working from home, they really don't need the expense.

On the other extreme, there is almost a desperation to bring employees back into a central workplace and resume some more traditional ways of working.

There’s not going to be a “one-size-fits-all” here and organisations will need to establish what works best for them in terms of productivity whilst remaining sympathetic to the wishes of their employees and also attractive to new recruits in the future. There are some common points of consideration however:

• For many employees, working from home has been a positive experience and a high proportion wish to continue doing so, at least partially
• Others find working from home a challenge both in terms of their own productivity and their health and wellbeing, in particular their mental health
• For business, there are the potential benefits of cost savings whilst endearing employee satisfaction by allowing continued working from home
• Working from home puts new strains on business just as maintaining a safe working environment will, both threatening organisational culture

A compromise seems to be on the cards for most organisations and so it’s very likely that a lot of businesses will adopt some form of hybrid approach; a solution whereby staff can mix and match their time spent in the workplace or at home. Notwithstanding, we predict that we will be see a high volume of flexible working requests over the coming months and businesses may find that keeping everyone happy may take some not inconsiderable planning.

When contemplating requests to continue working from home, we think there are some significant advantages to working in the office that should not be overlooked:

• The transmission of ideas and information, almost by osmosis, that only happens when people share space and time together
• Instantaneous communication; being able to simply swivel your chair to ask a colleague a simple question rather than having to organise a zoom call or send an email
• The creative space of the watercooler or coffee machine that often ignites ideas when otherwise distant colleagues can communicate
• The advantage reading the body language and visual clues that others often give when holding in-person meetings enabling individuals to judge their colleagues’ true reactions when ideas are floated
• Fairer meeting outcomes that aren’t dominated by the person who takes charge over screen based meetings
• Spontaneous communication of thoughts and ideas

Remote working also poses huge challenges to new recruits. Understanding the culture of an organisation is usually learned through experience, by watching and shadowing others to see “how things are done around here”. Having to ask questions from a colleague who might actually be a complete stranger, may not come easy. Furthermore, having every question committed to email, and thereby creating an instant audit trail, may create hesitancy in asking quite pertinent questions or simple asks that would usually be done across the desk.

Business leaders need to carefully consider what the shape of there workplaces will mean to the ability of their employees to be able to do their jobs effectively and efficiently. The draw of cost saving may be easily outweighed by the positive effects that spending time with people brings.

Returning to the workplace will be part of the content of our forthcoming breakfast club on 1st April. You can book you place at https://hrchampions.co.uk/events/event/208/HR-&-Employment-Law-Update--Online-1st-April

And if you have any questions raised by the points here, as usual we are available for support on 01451 331331 or via email on This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

The last 12 months has presented a raft of new rules and guidelines that we are expected or requested to adhere to in order to protect the health & wellbeing of ourselves and others. There has been much debate over the legality of employers to enforce such guidelines, in particular whether receiving the Covid-19 vaccine can be mandated as a condition of employment.

The debate took a further twist recently when an Employment Tribunal ruled to uphold an employer’s decision to dismiss an employee for refusing to wear a mask when he was on a client’s premises.

If we delve a little further into that case, we will see that the employee, a delivery driver, arrived at the premises of Tate & Lyle where he was issued a mask and told to wear it at all times whilst on site in accordance with the company’s health & safety rules. He took the mask off whilst he was in his cab and refused to put it back on when challenged stating that he didn’t have to wear it whilst he was isolated in his cab.

Because of this breach of rules, the driver was subsequently banned from Tate & Lyle’s premises. Despite an appeal from the employer to have the driver allowed back on site, Tate & Lyle stood firm and, as the employer did not have any alternative work for the driver, he was dismissed for “some other substantial reason”; or SOSR in HR speak.

So, whilst the driver wasn’t dismissed explicitly for refusing to wear a mask, his contract would have dictated that he must follow the health & safety rules of any clients whilst on their premises. And because the wearing of a mask was a health & safety rule of Tate & Lyle’s, it was this failure to wear one that ultimately led to his dismissal.

Let’s consider the situation if it was the employee’s direct employer who held the rule that masks were to be worn on site. Refusal to wear a mask in this situation would more likely fall under “failure to follow a reasonable management instruction”. This is very often cited as grounds for dismissal, and, under the current circumstances most would agree that expecting staff to wear a mask on site, at least whilst moving around, is indeed reasonable.

So how is this likely to extend to the insistence that employees must be vaccinated. Well, that isn’t something that we are going to speculate on at this stage. It’s something we’ve already discussed in a previous post, but we’ll have to wait for a case to reach Tribunal before we have a definitive legal answer.

We should consider though that Government guidance is to encourage uptake of the vaccine rather than mandate it and that there is quite a difference from being injected with a something than simply wearing some PPE. Furthermore, we should note the Government information regarding the vaccine and Covid transmission:

Can you give COVID-19 to anyone if you have had the vaccine?

The vaccine cannot give you COVID-19 infection, and a full course will reduce your chance of becoming seriously ill. We do not yet know whether it will stop you from catching and passing on the virus, but we do expect it to reduce this risk. So, it is still important to follow the guidance in your local area to protect those around you.

To protect yourself and your family, friends and colleagues, you still need to:

• practise social distancing
• wear a face mask
• wash your hands carefully and frequently
• follow the current guidance

In the meantime, organisations need to undertake their own risk assessments, and apply appropriate rules and guidelines. Make sure these are communicated to all employees with senior leaders role modelling and re-enforcing them. Include any outside organisations in your communications that might have reason to come onto your premises. Remember to keep an audit trail so that employees can be held to account.

We have documents and templates to help businesses with risk assessments and guideline implementation and as usual we are available for support on 01451 331331 or via email on This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

We don’t usually respond to the budget on this blog, preferring instead to leave that sort of commentary to the accountants and financial planners. On this occasion however, with the budget playing such a significant part in post Covid economic recovery, and having such dramatic effect on jobs and employment, we thought a few lines were in order.

As is customary, opposition leaders and analysts took the opportunity to lambast the Chancellor for devising a budget that, in their opinion, failed to deliver a satisfactory economic stimulus to help the country bounce back from the pandemic. But to be fair, we didn’t think it was too bad.

Backed by optimistic statistics about the future of the economy from the Office for Budget Responsibility, Mr Sunak resisted calls to immediately raise personal taxes and cut spending to repay the unparalleled public borrowing that Covid has forced upon the Government. Instead, the Chancellor has maintained many of his costly job protection measures and aimed a delayed taxation increase largely at super-profitable businesses. We would still like to see some measures that capture appropriate tax revenue from the likes of Amazon and Google.

Here are the main points of note:

• The furlough scheme will continue until September 2021. Employees will continue to receive at least 80% of their gross pay and this can still be topped up by employers who must also continue to cover the cost of NI and pension contributions.
  
  
• Additionally, eligibility for the furlough scheme increases. From 1 May 2021, staff who were employed from 2 March can be furloughed. Currently the cut-off date is 30 October. Also, you’ll be able to use the scheme even if you haven’t used it previously.
  
  
• In July, furlough grants will reduce to 70% of wages and to 60% of wages in August and September. Employees must still be paid at least 80% of normal pay so the 10% & 20% reduction in grants must be covered by employers if they wish to maintain staff on the scheme.
  
  
• We see this “tapering off” of the grant as a signal to employers that it’s time to take stock and make a call on the tough decisions regarding employees that the furlough scheme has enabled them to delay.
  
  
• Self employed grants will also continue. There will be a fourth grant covering February to April (at 80% of average profits). There will also be a fifth and final self-employed grant for May onward. Some previously excluded self-employed workers will be able to claim the 4th and 5th grants so long as they submitted their 2019/20 tax return before midnight 2nd March.
  
  
• The National Living Wage sees a modest increase to £8.91 from April 2021. Remember this is the minimum hourly rate for those aged 25 and over. There were also modest increases for the National Minimum Wage.
  
  
• Personal Allowances will still increase to £12,570 for the 21/22 tax year with the higher rate band will going up to £50,270. However, these will then be frozen until April 2026. This is the closest thing to a tax increase that the chancellor imposed as 100% of any pay increases that employees are awarded will be taxed in some form.
  
  
• The Employer cash bonus incentive scheme for taking on apprentices will rise to £3K per apprentice regardless of the apprentice’s age and the scheme is extended by 6 months to September 21.

Another point of note was the announcement of the “Help to Grow Scheme”. This is a 12 week, partially funded education programme, to support senior managers of small and medium sized businesses to boost their business’s performance, resilience, and long-term growth.

Whilst the training will be delivered by business schools and universities, its introduction does endorse the benefits of the Leadership and Management Training that we have been delivering for years. Clearly the Government recognises that to drive an effective economic recovery, businesses need to have senior decision-makers who are capable of leading and who understand the consequences of their actions and decisions.

Our own Accredited Training Course schedule is in full swing and 100% funding is still available for businesses in the Worcestershire, Swindon & Wiltshire, Bristol & West of England and Heart of the South West LEP areas. Take a look at the details on our website or contact us for further information on 01452 331331 or e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.