It seems that amidst all the bluster surrounding the pandemic, lockdown and which area is going to be in which tier, the story regarding bullying allegations against Home Secretary Priti Patel last week, has slipped almost innocently by. Westminster, it would appear, still works by its own rules on this matter and the Prime Minister’s behaviour is a poor example to others.

It was alleged that Ms Patel had breached the ministerial code of behaviour and was accused of shouting and swearing at staff. Indeed, former Home Office minister Sir Philip Rutnam is suing the government for constructive dismissal, alleging that Ms Patel had "created fear".

Considering the state of the country, the uncertainty of people’s jobs and the attention that has been turned towards Mental Health during the pandemic, this really should have been a much more significant story. Amazingly, the establishment that creates the laws the rest of us must abide by, doesn’t currently have formal disciplinary procedures; instead discipline is handled by their parties. An independent channel for staff to complain about MP’s behaviour was only introduced under le last Prime Minister and even that only offers ‘emotional’ support and guidance.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s behaviour during this episode has been particularly questionable. It was he who ordered the investigation into Ms Patel’s behaviour by Alex Allan, the then standards chief. However, when the investigation found that the allegations proved to be founded, Mr Johnson chose to simply disregard the results and declared his support for Ms Patel, saying he didn’t think she was a bully.

Mr Allan resigned from his post following Mr Johnson’s declaration.

Having presided over numerous cases of bullying and harassment allegations over the years, we believe we would have seen a very different outcome had this incident occurred within a business or other organisation. Ms Patel’s defence that “issues were not pointed out to me” would not of held much sway. Everybody has the right to be treated with dignity and respect and individuals, particularly those in positions of power and seniority, must be aware of the impact that their behaviour has on others.

Ms Patel did apologise and say that if she upset anybody it was completely unintentional. However, where bullying is concerned, it is not how behaviour or actions are intended but how they are received which matters. So despite her apology Ms Patel was effectively found guilty and some action should have been taken against her.

Examining Mr Johnson’s behaviour, we should remember that bullying is not restricted to intimidation, shouting, and swearing at others. Bullying comes in many forms including exclusion of others and, as in Mr Johnson’s case, undermining others. Having appointed Alex Allan to carry out an investigation to then simply disregard the findings is, we believe, just as much a case of bullying as that alleged against Ms Patel. The fact that it led to Mr Allen’s resignation is, for us, another potential case of constructive dismissal.

Interestingly, the Ministerial Code was introduced just after the second World War so it’s not as though minsters haven’t had an opportunity to get used to it. Notwithstanding, treating others with dignity and respect should be a “given”, especially for those who run the country. The fact that they even have to have a code raises many questions in itself.

We would recommend that both Ms Patel and Mr Johnson attend one of our Dignity at Work workshops. They are beneficial for all organisations and help to remind staff about behavioural expectations and respect for others. 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.

Earlier this year we published a post on our blog about Subject Access Reports and the onerous obligation they are for organisations, especially smaller business that have limited resources to deal with such time-consuming tasks. Over the last few months, our website statistic show that post has become one of our most popular and the number of views has skyrocketed.

In that post, we gave some advice about what organisations could do to manage their data and so minimise the impact of a SAR if one was ever received. However, someone at the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) must have read it too because just last month new guidance was released about the handling of SARs that could take out some of the sting for employers.

We’ve been unable to find any statistics that might explain why that particular post has become so popular but we have a theory that it’s because there has been an increase in the number SARs received by employers. This we think is in response to individuals losing their jobs during the Covid-19 pandemic and wanting either to establish why they were selected for redundancy or just to be a nuisance to their former employer.

With more and more information being held electronically and more communication taking place via digital means, the potential amount of work involved in responding to a SAR is only going to increase. This makes the new guidance from the ICO particularly timely and should be welcomed with open arms.

The guidance in its entirety is quite a piece of bedtime reading but the pertinent points for employers are that:

• When a Subject Access Report is received, it is perfectly just and reasonable to ask the requester to clarify what information they are looking for, the context of the information or a timeframe within which the information might be found
• Whilst clarity is being sought, the clock is stopped on the time the employer has to respond to the SAR, thereby extending the usual 30 days

This new guidance is significant because it now puts some onus on the requester to be specific about the information they are looking for. This will potentially stop disgruntled employees from using a SAR as a weapon of revenge by forcing their former employers to incur unnecessary expense of time and money in preparing it.

Here’s an excerpt from an example on the ICO’s own website:

A supermarket receives a SAR from a long-standing employee for all the data the supermarket holds about them. The employee has recently had a complaint made about them by another employee.

The supermarket asks the employee if they only want information relating to the complaint or if the employee is looking for information between particular dates. The supermarket also asks if the employee would like information unrelated to their employment, eg information linked to the employee’s reward account as a customer.

Until the supermarket receives clarification, they will be unable to perform a reasonable search, or provide a copy of the information, as they do not know what information the request relates to.

You’re welcome to read the guidance on the ICO website at https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/right-of-access/ but in the meantime our original post is still very relevant and the advice it gives in managing and handling individuals’ information still deserves to be taken note of to help minimise any future liability. As usual however, all cases should be dealt with on an individual basis so please pick up the phone or drop us an e-mail if you’re ever in any doubt.

Call us on 01452 331331 or e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

After a full year in office, the Prime Minster delivered his party conference speech this week in very different circumstances and surroundings to what he may have expected 12 months ago. Despite donating a significant part of his speech to the opportunities for developing wind-turbine generated electricity in the UK, strengthening the NHS and overseeing an economic recovery were inevitable elements of Boris’s rhetoric.

Those elements continue to be either side of the tightrope upon which the Government seems to be perpetually balancing. Do we risk the economy by restricting people’s freedoms, or risk the NHS by returning them?

It’s said that it is in times of crisis when great leaders emerge. But is this something that can be said of Boris as we struggle on in the face of the coronavirus crisis?

When we discuss leadership during our training courses, one of the expressions we like to share is the 3 Cs of Leadership:

• Clarity
• Consistency
• Consequences

If we look back at some great leaders of the past, it’s easy to apply these characteristics. We won’t give you examples here but try it for yourself.

Did the great leader you are thinking of display clarity? Were they clear in their mission, message or belief? Was there any ambiguity or was it made blatantly plain what they were about and what they wanted to achieve.

Did they exhibit consistency? Did they stick to unswervingly and with singlemindedness to their mission or message?

And did this consistency and clarity make it easy to understand and visualise the consequences? ie what could or would be achieved. Equally were the consequences of not following the vision and values made clear?

If we look at the performance and behaviour of the Prime Minister and his Government during the Covid crisis, are we able to apply the 3 Cs? It’s certainly debateable. There have been ongoing questions cast over testing, track & trace and quarantine. And the Dominic Cummins lockdown-flouting story continues to find its way into the headlines. At times, senior ministers failed to communicate the same message reliably.

We don’t have a political axe to grind at HR Champions but we do think that Leadership should be analysed and examined. It’s from real life examples that we demonstrate and extract what does and what doesn’t contribute to great leadership.

Incidentally, have you applied the 3 Cs test to your own leadership behaviours? If it’s something you want to examine in greater detail, we have Leadership Development training courses available at all levels. Why not talk to us about improving the leadership capabilities of you and your team. Call us on 01452 331331 or e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

An uncomfortable by-product of the Covid-19 pandemic and of the associated lockdown, has been the notable rise in reports of domestic abuse. One the most startling facts that has been revealed by this increase is just how much some individuals rely on the workplace as a haven or place of escape from an abusive relationship or environment.

It’s easy to explain why we’re hearing more about domestic abuse of course. With households forced to remain in their own company for extended periods, relationships become fraught and tensions build until they explode in an outburst of violence. For those situations we hear about, we should remember that there are many more that go unreported for fear of even greater violence.

As restrictions to abate the advancement of Covid are imposed upon us once again, and the prospect of a second national lockdown looms unnervingly toward us, employer might want to take some time to assess what the potential impact might be on their own workforce. Whilst it’s widely accepted that a high proportion of workers embrace the opportunity to work from home, we shouldn’t forget the many who exist in abusive relationships and who will be dreading the prospect of homeworking.

Employers may not feel that it is their responsibility to become involved in cases of domestic abuse, despite that effects that it may have on the individual, their performance or on co-workers. At HR Champions, we feel that it should fall under the heading of employee welfare and form part of the duty of care that organisations should hold for their staff. If the workplace is acting as a place of refuge for an abused individual, then, even unwittingly, the employer could be playing a vital role in that person’s wellbeing.

Businesses are not expected to take responsibility to resolve cases of domestic abuse but they should, in looking out for the welfare of their employees, notice the signs and signpost affected staff-members to relevant organisations and support groups. Ignoring or turning a blind eye when it’s evident that an issue exists, or is even suspected will almost certainly compound the effects of the abuse for the individual.
Countering the effects that domestic abuse might have in the workplace doesn’t have to be a huge, costly exercise and in fact there are some simple, quick wins that can be implemented by anyone:

• Firstly, we need to recognise that there might be a problem.
  • Has behaviour changed?
  • Is an individual uncharacteristically late for work or has let their work standards drop?
  • In the current climate, an abuse victim may push or find reasons to be allowed to come into the workplace when others are working from home.
  • Is someone dressing differently or unsuitably for the time of year?
  • Abuse isn’t always physical so be aware of mental abuse too
• If an employee discloses they are being abused then don’t doubt or question it; reassure them that they will be supported at work
• Take whatever action you can that doesn’t risk worsening the issue. This may be changing how incoming phone calls or e-mails are managed so the abuser cannot access their victim whilst they are at work or are discouraged to try
• Display posters or information for support groups of domestic abuse or have a list of organisations readily available
• Remember that men can also be victims of domestic abuse and that it can occur in same sex relationships too

A domestic abuse workplace policy will be a good addition to your organisational documentation. It should define what domestic abuse is, the company’s approach to it and it should reassure victims that they will be supported and treated respectfully. Ensuring your managers are trained in how to deal with difficult conversations will help too.

We’re currently hard at work producing a new Domestic Abuse Workplace Policy which we’ll make available in out Toolkit section very soon. In the meantime if you require any support with handling a known or suspected instance of domestic abuse 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.

It’s not going away! With a recent and significant increase in cases, and local lockdown increasingly being imposed across areas of the UK, the country seems to be going backwards in its struggle against Covid-19. The most common theme in calls to the help line recently has been how to deal with employees who attend the workplace with symptoms.

Adhering to the Government guidelines remains paramount of course and we shouldn’t let our attention slip from the most basic measures of regular handwashing, keeping our distance from others and self-isolating if we show symptoms. However we may need to deal with those who are in denial about having the disease and/or are afraid of not being able to earn enough money to live.

It’s highly likely that some of the cases we heard about of widespread contagion within food processing plants in the north of England were bought about because people who had symptoms still reported to work because they were worried about not being paid.

The Government’s big battle amongst all of this is that of the economy versus the health of the nation. A tightening of restrictions in the hospitality sector has already been mooted, but all industries and businesses need to play their part.

We’ve put together a guidance document for employers regarding the various scenarios that might be faced should an employee present for work with symptoms. It’s available for download from the Toolkits section of our website. Here’s a synopsis.

Individual should not go to the workplace if they:

• Are unwell with suspected coronavirus symptoms
• Are told to self-isolate by a Government Test and Trace service
• Someone they live in close proximity with has been advised to self-isolate and/or has symptoms.

Employees who need to self-isolate should:

• Tell their employer and go home
• Avoid touching anything
• Follow cleaning guidelines
• Track and trace those in the company that they have been in close contact

If someone with coronavirus symptoms has come into work:

• Send the employee home and recommend testing
• Follow Public Health England cleaning advice
• Review company risk measures and how “close contact” was not managed if this is the case.

If close contact occurred

• Avoid contact with people at high increased risk of severe illness from coronavirus
• Take extra care in practising social distancing and good hygiene
• Watch out for symptoms and self-isolate if they also show signs of coronavirus

What is close contact? Close ‘contact’ is a person who has been close to someone who has tested positive for COVID-19 anytime from 2 days before the person was symptomatic up to 7 days from onset of This could be a person who:

• Spends significant time in the same household
• Is a sexual partner
• Has had face-to-face contact (within one metre), including:

What happens if you or others identify that employees have been exposed to Covid-19 through close contact at work?
You need to complete an HSE RIDDOR on line (Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013) as a person at work (a worker) has been diagnosed as having COVID-19 attributed to an occupational exposure to coronavirus. This must be reported as a case of disease.

Multiple cases in the workplace?
If there is more than one case of COVID-19 in a workplace, employers should contact their local health protection team to report the suspected outbreak.

As usual, this information is for guidance only. For specific advice and support you should contact us direclty. Call us on 01452 331331 or e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Before Covid, we had seen a notable rise in the number of employees requesting flexible working requests. Work/life balance had increasingly become a leading factor in people’s employer and career choices and requests for changes in working hours or conditions had started to come from employees of all generations; Millennials as well as the more anticipated Baby Boomers.

The coronavirus pandemic has changed everything of course and the Government’s job retention scheme provided a sample of not having to work so hard to around 9 million furloughed workers. Most of these employees would have had at least 80% of their pay still intact and so it’s understandable if during the lockdown months their taste developed for not working quite as much.

Those working from home also saw benefits. Time spent getting dressed and ready for work and then commuting could be better used to be more productive, for exercise or a little self indulgence.

With schools starting a perhaps tentative return to a pre-Covid timetable, and the Government actively promoting a return to the workplace for most workers, should we expect a steep rise in requests for flexible working?

Employees have a statutory right to be able to ask their employer to make a change to their contractual working terms and conditions; provided they have worked continually for that employer for a period of 26 weeks at the time of the request. Employers are obliged to consider any such requests and agree to the changes unless they have a sound business reason.

Flexibility in work can extend beyond working hours alone. Changes in place of work, job sharing, shift work and flexitime are all aspects that workers can ask to be amended under a flexible working request and they must be given due consideration.

We have heard many stories of businesses claiming that actually, office space is over-rated and their staff have proved to be much more productive working from home. Some companies stand to make significant savings on office rent and rate bills by agreeing for their staff to work from home. But is it the right choice for everyone?

Agreeing to a flexible working request may seem like an easy decision to make but let’s not forget that once agreed, there’s no going back. Unless stipulated as temporary, flexible working requests amount to a permanent change of terms and conditions. The coronavirus pandemic means we are still very much in a state of un-knowing, so it might be foolhardy to agree to changes to contracts that you might want to rescind in the future.

We should also remember that it’s a two-way street. We’ve had a pretty good summer on the whole and a well managed homeworking schedule could mean a full day’s work is achievable whilst leaving an hour or two to spend in the garden. A touch of frosty weather might change all of that though and cost of having the heating on all day at home might make the prospect of a toast warm office quite appealing.

For the time being we recommend that changes to working hours and conditions remain flexible and temporary. Flexibility in working arrangements might be a lure for new employees but we’re not out of the Covid woods yet so it’s advisable to maintain control over how, when and where your employees carry out their work.

Make sure your contracts of employment are carefully worded, clear and unambiguous. Should a problem or disagreement arise, your contracts are what you’ll need to turn to should you need to lay down the law.

For help and support with implementing flexible working arrangements and with changes to contracts, call us on 01452 331331 or e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

How to deal with and manage absence has always been a topic that has generated a lot of requests for advice and support. With the Covid pandemic has come a whole raft of new absence scenarios that has given rise to a new wave of absence management enquiries.

These enquires ultimately relate to how absent employees should be paid. Unsurprising as economic uncertainty rages on and when we consider that cashflow for many businesses will be squeezed tighter as they are required to contribute more to the furlough scheme as it winds down.

Every situation will be different and likely to have its own nuances, but we have tried to summarise a range of different scenarios and the employee’s right to pay for each in the table below:

Please use the above as a guide but in all cases we recommend that you seek specific advice before taking any action or withholding pay. We are available as usual on 01452 331331 or via e-mail at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Moving to the Flexible Furlough Scheme has proved largely un-eventful in itself, however the withdrawal of NI and Pension payments by the Government this month has put added strain on some businesses, enough for a number to concede that redundancies are inevitable in order to survive. Further reductions in the Government’s financial support as the furlough scheme winds down will undoubtedly adversely affect more businesses yet.

Living with the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme has pretty much become second nature for most of us. Early issues have been ironed out and clarity has now been provided over the main sticking points of holidays, redundancy and notice payments.

We do come across the odd case where the furlough scheme is being used fraudulently, albeit unwittingly so. Nevertheless, HMRC has already made some arrests for Furlough Fraud and having launched a web page dedicated to reporting fraud, now might be a good time to review your furlough claims and your understanding of related procedures.

Here is a brief list of some potential pitfalls:

• Furloughed staff cannot do any work for the business. Keeping in touch via phone, e-mail or a web-meeting platform is probably OK but they cannot contribute to business productivity
• If staff are or have been working from home then you cannot claim furlough payments for them
• Employees can still undertake training whilst furloughed. You’ll need to top pay up to at least their National Minimum Wage rate for these days if there furlough pay is less than this
• Holiday days must be topped up to 100%, including for bank holidays. If you’ve instructed staff that any holiday accrued on furlough must be taken during furlough, then you’ll need to make sure that these days are paid at 100%
• Furlough claims can be made for 80% of employees’ normal pay. If you’ve agreed a pay cut prior to furloughing staff, then you can only claim for 80% of the new agreed pay
• On the subject of agreed pay cuts, you need to make sure that any reduction in wages for staff who are still working, does not take their pay below National Minimum Wage rates
• Redundancy payments must be calculated at the employees’ normal rate of pay despite the temptation to use the lower, furloughed rate as a way of keeping costs down
• Notice payments can be subsidised by furlough payments, but you may need to top up to the appropriate rate of pay
• Furlough claims cannot be used to make statutory redundancy payments

We should shortly be hearing of an amnesty arrangement for any employers that may have, inadvertently or otherwise, made fraudulent furlough claims whereby they will be able to come clean and repay any claims they perhaps shouldn’t have made.

If you’re in any doubt about of the claims that you have made, we can undertake a review for you. Contact us on 01452 331331 or via e-mail at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Throughout the coronavirus crisis it has been our mission to keep you up to date with the latest news and guidance from Government to enable you to remain fair and legal when dealing with your employees. With the rules and guidelines changing almost daily, particularly in the early days and weeks, it’s been quite a challenge.

There has been a recent update to Government guidance regarding Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) and how we should be dealing with and treating employees in various scenarios where Covid-19 is in play, including precautionary isolation. We had set out to analyse and précis this guidance, but we’ve established that it remains a minefield and far too complicated to summarise in a few hundred words.

There have been a number of key dates from which legislation and guidance has changed which complicates matters even further as the rules that should be applied to any specific event will depend upon the guidance at the time. With so many changes and amendments to Government policy, we’ve concluded that cases regarding SSP are probably best dealt with on an individual basis.

Nevertheless, we have manged to isolate some key points which may help you to determine your position regarding SSP, if and when you have any employees that become ill or have to self-isolate. These are:

• SME employers (less than 250 employees) can claim back up to two weeks of SSP per employee but only for Covid-19 related cases
• Self-isolation owing to symptoms in the employee or a member of the employee’s household or support bubble qualifies for SSP
• The employee must still qualify for SSP in the normal ways:
  • Be classed as an employee
  • Earn at least £120 per week
  • Been ill or isolating/shielding for at least four days in a row (known as qualifying days)
• Once the four qualifying days are reached, SSP will count from day 1 of the illness or isolation; so is effectively backdated for Covid cases
• Where an Employee is isolating because a household member has symptoms, SSP ends if that person tests negative for Covid
• Employees are still required to provide a ‘fit-note’ if they are absent for more than seven days but his can be in the form of an isolation note which is available online from NHS111
• Quarantining because an employee has recently returned to or entered the UK from a country not on the Government’s ‘safe list’ does not qualify for SSP

Of course we live and breath this kind of information at HR Champions so if you require any clarification or have a more complicated case, we’re available for consultation on 01452 331331 or via e-mail at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Following Spain’s removal last Sunday from the UK’s ‘safe list’, the list of countries you can return to the UK from with the need for self-isolation, this morning Luxembourg also lost its place after an increase in cases was reported. Whilst the move to remove Spain from the list was unexpected, it’s come as no surprise, being peak holiday season, that we’ve had a lot of enquiries this week regarding employer responsibilities and quarantine.

The Government’s position that any country can be removed from the list at any time and without notice, has cast much doubt over whether or not people will be taking their foreign holidays in the coming weeks. After months of lockdown, the prospect of two weeks in quarantine might be a price worth paying for some, but others will worry how their employers will view it and how it might affect their jobs.

Those unfortunate enough to be on holiday in Spain when the quarantine announcement was made, have obviously had little choice in the matter. On their return to the UK they must quarantine themselves. Whilst some airlines have taken away the option to travel to Spain by cancelling flights, a determined individual would probably still find a way to get their time in the sun.

With a few rare exceptions, employers don’t get to dictate what their employees do in their free time; or indeed where they go. So it’s crucial that employers make it clear what their stance is on quarantined employees so that staff can make an informed choice regarding taking their holidays.

First and foremost, we should remember that two weeks quarantine is a legal requirement for people returning from any country not on the exemption list. Therefore it would be illegal for an employer to be seen to encourage an employee to break the rules by asking them to leave their designated quarantine address and come into the workplace. Even if an isolated workspace was made available, the employer could face a fine as well as suffer reputational damage if they were caught.

The default position for those affected is to work from home. For many, this will just be a continuation of life during lockdown, but it’s a different matter for those who can only do their job on work premises, such as in construction, hospitality and retail.

In these circumstances employers will need to negotiate and agree with the employee how the time off will be treated. Holiday is an option, but of course the employee will need to have two weeks of annual leave remaining and be prepared to forgo it. Generous employees might be prepared to continue to pay absent employees but otherwise, unpaid leave might be the only alternative.

You might be inclined to class the time off as unauthorised absence, but this would be harsh on someone who was ‘caught-out’, so to speak. Whether or not you adopt this stance on those who continue with an upcoming holiday that has been booked and paid for is something of a moral dilemma. It might not be seen in a good light to behave in this way against an individual that will lose out financially on a holiday they have been looking forward to for months.

It is possible for an employer to cancel their employee’s booked leave provided they give notice equivalent to the period of leave; so one week’s notice for one week’s holiday. It would be expected that the employer reimburse the employee for any losses incurred in this situation however, which could prove costly.

The above scenarios assume that employees are asymptomatic or have returned a negative test. Statutory Sick Pay would come into play for those who had actually contracted the disease or show symptoms.

Finally, we did hear a rumour that employees forced into quarantine could be furloughed. This might be acceptable for those who were already abroad when the announcement was made but we don’t think it would be right for those who knowingly travel to Countries not on the Government’s exemption list. At the moment, it is still just a rumour anyway.

For help and advice with managing you employees absence, whether quarantined or otherwise, call us on 01452 331331 or e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.