Do you discriminate during your recruitment process? Sometimes a lack of thought or care can mean we unintentionally introduce discrimination whilst recruiting.

This is covered in the Recruitment and Selection module of our Essential HR for Managers course.  Watch this two and a half minute video to see our consultant Owen Lee in action as he discusses indirect discrimination whilst recruiting and test yourself to see whether you pass or get caught out by the typical pitfalls.

Click for more details bout the Essential HR for Managers course or call us on 01452 331331.

After their historic win over Germany this week in the European Cup Finals, the England Football Team’s predicted win over Ukraine at the weekend will mean a midweek semi-final match kicking off at 8.00pm next Wednesday evening; followed by a potential final (!) on Sunday 11th July at 8.00pm. So, is it time to be planning for a rash of short-notice holiday requests and sickness absences as fans nurse their sore heads after either celebrating a momentous victory or drowning their sorrows?

Following England’s first round win over Tunisia in the 2018 World Cup, the media reported that staff absences rose by 36 percent. It’s probably a safe bet then to assume that there will be some disruption to work attendance if England progress through the European tournament. We might also find that, thanks to Covid, we have some additional factors to consider that complicate our absence management.

Employees who fail to attend work claiming to be ill can be at risk of disciplinary action up to and including dismissal if their employer has evidence that they are not actually sick. Of course the employee may well be genuinely sick, albeit that sickness is self-inflicted as a result of drinking too much the night before. So what then?

In agreeing a contract of employment, employees are committing to make themselves available for work at the times laid out within the contract. They must therefore make every effort to present themselves fit for work. Overindulging in alcohol in the evenings to the extent where it compromises attendance and/or timekeeping is clearly breaching the contract and so subjects the employee to an investigation and potentially disciplinary action.

Covid however, has gifted the errant employee a couple of get out clauses. Firstly, there’s “Working from Home”. We might see a lot more of this “scheduled-in” for post-match days where employers are allowing it; although the added productivity that has been widely attributed to WFH may be somewhat lacking on the morning after a match. Short of ringing to check or scheduling an 8.30am Zoom or Teams meeting, it may be hard to quantify whether or not someone is actually working.

The second escape route for hung-over employees is self-isolation. Whilst we’ve all been studiously following the rules around Track & Trace and workplace safety, does anyone actually ask for evidence when a staff member says that they have been pinged by the app and needs to self-isolate? Having spent months in lockdown it’s unlikely that anyone would want to self-impose isolation on themselves if they didn’t have to so we probably don’t feel the need. However, it may be seen to be an opportune excuse for the unscrupulous, hung-over worker.

There may be a temptation to let the odd “sickie” go, and make allowances for the fact that there is a major international sporting competition going on. After all, unless you have a sick-pay scheme, you don’t have to pay an employee for one day of sickness absence. The danger here however is that this sends the wrong message and could be seen as ‘custom and practice’, making it difficult to enforce any action on another occasion.

Even if a sick day isn’t taken, you might need to consider employees turning up for work still under the influence of alcohol, especially if they drive company vehicles.

We would usually point employers to the relevance of having a robust absence policy in place at this point; an obvious starting point in curbing unauthorised absences. Under the circumstances however, perhaps a different approach is more appropriate.

We have already seen a number of employers gift their staff additional time off work to help them recover from so-called Covid burn-out, so there is already a president set for gifting extra time off work. Furthermore, a memorable performance by the England team would be a welcome tonic to bolster national morale after a truly tumultuous year.

So, instead of taking a zero-tolerance approach to unauthorised absence, on this occasion, perhaps there is an option to embrace the problem and develop a strategy that will garner the respect and loyalty of your team. After all, chances are your clients and customers are going to be in a similar situation. What’s more, if England do win, there probably won’t be much work done the next day anyway.

Some ideas to consider might be to:

• Call a company-wide holiday and shut down for the day; enforcing your right, with adequate notice, to dictate when staff take holiday days.
• Offer a flexi-day that allowed staff to start and finish later…
• …or just start later.
• Draw lots, amongst those who request it, to establish who is allowed to take holiday if you are pressed for resources and need to open.

Whatever you do, ensure that you exercise fairness, equality and offer choices to all members of your team. Falling into the trap of assuming it’s just the men that want to go to the pub to watch the football could easily get you into trouble for discrimination.

Finally, don’t forget your duty of care as an employer. If it transpires that alcohol dependency or another underlying health issue exists, you’ll need to take a different approach as there may be a condition that is classed as a disability and therefore subject to treatment under the Equalities Act.

We’re here to help with employee issues like this and others, so if you need any additional support, please get in touch 01452 331331 or by e-mail to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

The combination of a re-surging economy and the effects of Brexit on the availability of foreign workers has bought recruitment to the top of the problem pile again for UK businesses; particularly in the hospitality and leisure sectors. I read just last week how an award-winning restaurant in Devon re-opened for business following lockdown only to have several members of its previously furloughed staff promptly hand in their notices; presumably to seek better paid work elsewhere.

It seems ironic that our pent-up disposable income and desire to spend it is being stifled by a shortage of staff in the very industries that are fundamentally designed to accept it.

We should not underestimate the likely knock-on effects of these staff shortages and the potential struggles to find talent that is likely to be suffered across all business sectors.

We have discussed in previous posts how important it is for businesses to build a reputation as a good employer in order to recruit and retain the very best employees. Unsurprisingly, the challenges of the last 15 months have made it all but impossible for most organisations to achieve or even attempt this. In contrast, some have still managed to earn a reputation as a bad employer, as demonstrated by the recent story of the alleged toxic work environment at Brewdog.

In order to capitalise on the virulent economic bounce-back that has been forecast by the ONS, business will need to develop a recruitment strategy to attract the best candidates to help them grow. Before defaulting to the traditional temptations for new staff of a competitive salary, health care and generous pension provision, recruiting companies should take note of how the pandemic has changed the recruitment landscape.

For example, now that employees have had a taste of homeworking and so many companies have come under pressure to maintain at least a degree of it, we may find that its absence becomes a deal-breaker for many potential new recruits. As work-life balance and concerns over mental health issues have come to the fore during the pandemic, we may also expect to see more requests for part-time work, so options for job-sharing positions may also need to become part of the recruiting tactics.

Equally, environmental issues are resonating more amongst the population, and these are re-enforced by the Government’s own green agenda. There is already a requirement for larger business to report their greenhouse gas emissions and energy use and it is probably only a matter of time before that is extended to smaller organisations. Being ahead of the curve and making public your environmental policies and strategy is another way to attract the ecologically aware generation of talent.

Employees still want to be assured that they will be invested in and so a properly considered succession plan will mean that skills are available internally to meet growth plans and staff attrition will lessen as employees see their future development mapped out for them. If you haven’t signed up for one of our workforce planning meetings yet there are a few spaces still available.

Business in Worcestershire, Wiltshire and West of England LEP areas can also take advantage of our own programme of funded leadership training to offer potential employees as an added hook. As well as developing leadership skills, communication, and resilience, it’s like offering an added benefit that need not cost the company anything and generate immediate loyalty.

We’re here to help with all aspects of your recruitment strategy. From policy and contractual changes to accommodate new ways of working, to developing an organisational development plan, to the availability of fully funded and other training. contact us now on 01452 331331 or by e-mail to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Although some may say that a global pandemic was due, nobody really saw it coming. If they had, we may have been better prepared with stocks of personal protective equipment and the like. From an economic point of view, it was a fortunate that the Government was relatively creative and decisive in coming up with and furlough scheme so that lockdown could be effectively implemented to save lives.

For most people, being placed onto the furlough scheme actually amounted to a variation of contract. Something that, strictly speaking, should have been preceded by a period of consultation as it was a significant change of terms. Considering the circumstances however, only the pedantic few are likely to create a fuss over consultation not taking place. Furthermore, we can’t really see a Tribunal would upholding a grievance based on these claims should anyone insist on taking matters to the extreme.

We have also seen variations to contracts for the many who began working from home during the pandemic. One of the statutory clauses within a contract of employment is the employee’s place of work. So, strictly speaking, those who now find that their workspace is in their own home, even for just some of the time, have experienced a variation to their contract.

The homeworking issue has two sides however. We know that some businesses are keen to return to a fully manned office but are finding resistance from members of their team who have discovered benefits to home working and are eager to continue the arrangement. For this population, a formal request for flexible working would be the usual course of action, although this can be refused.

Just as we had no idea that the pandemic was on its way, nor do we truly know if and when things will return to something that resembles the way they used to be. It’s common reasoning that some of the changes to our lifestyles, both personal and work related will prove to be permanent. But when will that permanency take hold so that we know we are existing in the so called “new normal”?

Contracts of employment underpin the very concept of Employment Law and provide a set of rules against which both employee and employer can be held to account. During the pandemic, as we have discussed, there has been a degree of elasticity in how these rules have been applied, but this can’t continue indefinitely. Uncertainty in the terms under which someone is employed is highly likely to lead to problems.

We have helped many clients deal with employee issues raised because of an ambiguous clause or term in their contract. So whilst we’ve seen some leniency in enforcement of terms over the last 18 months, companies really should be thinking about how they plan to run their businesses going forward. If the economy sees the growth that’s been forecast, there will be lots of new employees and they need to be signed up to contracts that are fit for purpose and reflect how the business operates.

We’ve always recommended keeping contracts of employment and staff handbooks regularly updated and that message has even greater pertinence now. Since April 2020 employees must be given a contract from day one, so it’s a good idea to have yours prepared in readiness so you’re not putting together a rushed document.

Going forward, we should learn some lessons from the pandemic and plan for the unexpected as much as possible. We don’t know what the next big issue will be, but we can probably make some decisions that pre-empt some potential problems. For example, periods of adverse weather are likely to increase and so keeping a working from home option in the contract may be a good idea. A compulsory vaccination clause, whilst questionable, might at least be worth exploring if it’s relevant to your industry.

The important thing is not to think that your contracts can’t be amended, at least for new employees. They should be relevant and reflective of the current working environment.
We make sure we’re on top of current trends and legislation so f you would like us to review your employment contracts and staff handbooks, or if you need support with any other aspects of HR and Employment Law, please contact us on 01452 331331 or by e-mail on This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

A friend of mine had his night out at the cinema frustrated last week when, despite buying and paying for his ticket in advance, he arrived at the venue, one of a national chain, to find it closed. The manager happened to be leaving the site at the time he arrived and explained that they had been unable to keep to their opening schedule because they couldn’t get staff to agree to come into work.

In a similar vein, there have been numerous stories in the media recently regarding bars and restaurants being uncertain whether they’ll be able open or offer a full service owing to a shortage of waiting and serving staff.

A variety of reasons has been cited for these situations occurring and whilst we might be able to partially point a finger at poor management and planning, the common denominator may be previously unconsidered consequences of the furlough scheme.

When the Governments Return to Work Road Map was announced we posted about the steps that employers should be taking to ensure a smooth return to the workplace. The roadmap laid out a clear timeline that allowed for appropriate steps to be taken. Some of the steps we recommended include:

• Communicating your opening schedule in plenty of time to give staff fair warning
• Planning and sharing rotas and shifts as far in advance as possible
• Holding return to work interviews with team members
• Offering re-familiarisation days
• Communicating and training on your Covid-safe health and safety measures and protocols

If a return to work plan that didn’t include at least some of these points wasn’t implemented, then it may be of little surprise that some employees are reticent to simply let go of the cosy comfort blanket that the furlough scheme has provided over the last 12 months or so. It’s easy to see how being paid to not do very much could form a habit that’s hard to break.

However, if employers have work for their employees to do, then furlough is no longer an option and failure to attend work when requested should be treated as unauthorised absence. It’s not up to employees to decide to be on furlough and continuing to claim and pay furlough where there is work to be done is at best morally reprehensible and at worst, a fraudulent claim of Government grants; something that HMRC is unlikely to be forgiving towards.

The hospitality sector has suffered more than most throughout the coronavirus pandemic. Although we often expect a high staff turnover rate, particularly when work is seasonal, many workers have had to find new jobs outside the industry. With Covid creating an ever-present air of uncertainty, it’s little wonder that workers don’t want to return to the sector and give up the security of furlough that their new jobs will be able to offer should we have to suffer another lockdown.

Exacerbated by the effects of Brexit upon migrant workers, a shortage of staff creates its own problems. Bars and restaurants will be desperate to recoup the deficits of a “lost year” and will want to seize their share of the pent-up spending power of consumers. Risks include taking shortcuts with health and safety measures or allowing/encouraging staff to work beyond their permitted hours without breaks. This may be even more impactful as younger staff members are recruited to fill the void left by those who have moved on.

The Government also wants to see workers returning to offices to re-ignite the use of cafes and coffee shops, thereby bringing associated workers back to the workplace and off furlough. The lasting effects of this situation may be higher pay for employees in the hospitality sector as well as a higher regard for jobs within the industry.

Talk to us to discuss your return-to-work plan, including staff management and policy implementation. We’re available on 01452 331331 or by e-mail on This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

With the Bank of England earlier this month forecasting the biggest economic bounce back since WWII, and the final stages of the lockdown lifting plan remaining intact, despite the Indian Covid variant, it seems that we might actually be on the cusp of an economic resurgence. There might be an element of seeing is believing but we should all remain optimistic at least.

Businesses will be chomping at the bit to re-ignite their growth plans and make up for lost time, but we can’t ignore that the workforce landscape has irrevocably changed. Concerns over skills shortages and increased competition in the skills marketplace that we experienced pre-Covid has been compounded as employees re-evaluate their own work-life balances and longer-term life goals following the pandemic.

Successful and sustainable businesses have a goals-led business strategy that supports the senior leaders in planning the direction of the organisation. It is those businesses with a detailed Workforce Plan, which underpins the operational plan, that are the ones in control of their human resource forecasting enabling them to deliver the overall business and growth objectives.

To maintain a growth plan in the post-Covid world then, it is imperative that companies are in front of their competition when it comes to attracting and retaining “talent”; anticipating workforce needs and being proactive about making the plan happen. Working from home and hybrid workspaces are new concepts for employers to factor in.

Even the very best business plans can only come to fruition if the right people are in the right positions with the right skills at the right time. So effective workforce planning should be seen as a vital business process that aligns the changing organisational needs with the right people resources to deliver the wider business ambition.

When developing an effective workforce plan, we need to consider the different elements that influence it:

• Understanding the skills marketplace now and in the future – We need to ensure talent availability when it’s needed so this means researching University and school leaver rates over coming years as well as having an awareness of what the local community and demographic has to offer. Covid has exposed more organisations to remote working, expanding the potential talent pool to global proportions.
  
  
• An honest assessment of the current business and workforce – An honest and realistic evaluation of existing worker potential and likely attrition rates can be difficult but is necessary. Nobody wants to be seen as a bad employer so understanding why people leave can be a key learning in future recruitment drives.
  
  
• Supply and Demand - One reason employees leave might be that they don’t feel their skills are optimised; a signal that your future skills supply may already exist in your current workforce. But not everyone wants promotion or to move continually upward. Sometimes a sideways move or redeployment can be a way of retaining talent in readiness for an increase in demand.
  
  
• Planning the timeline – A Gannt chart cross referenced to the business plan can be a useful tool here. Being able to predict when your skills needs will arise gives you the opportunity to do something about it. Speak to the local colleges and universities and influence them to run the courses to provide the skills you’ll need in 2, 3 and 5 years. Consider apprenticeship schemes and talk to the local LEP about how they can influence skills.
  
  
• Constant review – Covid has taught us how our plans can be thrown into disarray almost overnight. But it’s also given us a very successful lesson in how quickly we can adapt. Your business plan might constantly shift and change in line with economic influences so your workforce plan must do the same. Don’t be afraid to fail quickly and pivot as necessary.

Our emergence from the pandemic might prove to be a key turning. It’s been widely reported that individuals are choosing to re-skill and this creates an opportunity for business to influence what shape that re-skilling might take. This can’t be achieved however without a workforce plan.

We are running and a series of one-day seminars focussing on Workforce Planning. Sponsored by Worcestershire Council they are free to attend for businesses bases in Worcestershire but readers of this post can receive a 50% discount saving £75 per delegate. Book your place now at https://hrchampions.co.uk/events/category/6 and use the code WFP50

If you would prefer a one to one discussion about workforce planning, then simply get in touch. Call us on 01452 331331 or e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

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..