You should know by now that the new Worker Protection Act is set to take effect on 26 October and UK businesses will face stricter requirements regarding the prevention of sexual harassment in the workplace. However, according to a survey by WorkNest, only 5% of businesses feel well-prepared for the new legislation, which highlights a concerning gap in readiness.

We usually talk about how this lack of preparedness will put companies at legal and financial risk, but let’s not forget that organisations who haven’t taken any steps are also leaving their employees vulnerable.

The Worker Protection Act introduces a positive duty for employers to take "reasonable steps" to prevent sexual harassment of their employees. If a tribunal finds that an employer has failed to meet this standard, they could face a 25% uplift in any compensation awarded to victims. This new responsibility brings increased scrutiny and legal implications, demanding that businesses be proactive in their efforts to safeguard employees from harassment.

Sexual harassment in the workplace is far more common than many may realise. According to a report by the Trades Union Congress (TUC), 52% of women have experienced sexual harassment at work, however many incidents go unreported.

In recent years, high-profile cases have brought the issue of workplace harassment into the public eye; the current news of former Harrods Owner, Mohammed Al Fayed being a case in point. The Al Fayed case also highlights the issue of the under-reporting of incidents.

The EHRC (Equality and Human Rights Commission) states that despite the high profile cases, many employers are still not taking adequate steps to prevent or address harassment, leaving them vulnerable to legal action under the new legislation. And let’s not forget that sexual harassment is not limited to women. Men, too, are subjected to inappropriate behaviour by both women and other men, and these instances are even less likely to be reported.

Sexual harassment is an issue that affects the entire workforce and so requires a comprehensive, holistic approach.

An aspect of the legislation that was removed from the original bill is the inclusion of sexual harassment from third parties. This refers to incidents of sexual harassment by customers, clients, or other external bodies or groups with whom employees interact. Despite not being part of the legislation, we recommend that employers also consider how to protect their staff not only from internal harassment but also from individuals outside of the company. This will put their commitment to providing a safe working environment beyond doubt.

A key step in protecting your business is to implement robust policies that address both internal and third-party harassment. This includes clear reporting channels, regular staff training, and comprehensive risk assessments. Moreover, ensuring that any policy changes are communicated effectively to all staff is essential.

Looking at previous cases, the training element will likely be one of the first things a tribunal examines in the event of a harassment claim. An organisation that can demonstrate it has provided relevant, ongoing training to all employees, including managers and supervisors, will be better positioned to defend itself in case of litigation. Regular, up-to-date training on sexual harassment should be high on the agenda, ensuring that employees understand not only what constitutes inappropriate behaviour but also how to report it.

While many businesses may want to handle the training internally, this isn’t something you want to get wrong. An external training provider, like HR Champions, can add weight and gravity to the seriousness of your anti-harassment message. External trainers often bring specialised expertise and an objective perspective that can help drive behavioural change within the organisation. This approach also signals to employees that management is taking the issue seriously and is committed to maintaining a safe and respectful workplace.

As the new Worker Protection Act comes into force, UK businesses must prioritise creating a harassment-free environment. Implementing effective policies, conducting regular training, and ensuring all employees are aware of their rights and responsibilities will not only protect your company but also foster a culture of respect and inclusivity, thereby achieving the ultimate aim of protecting your employees. Investing in training now could save your business from costly tribunal claims in the future.

Contact us to learn more about the Dignity at Work and Sexual Harassment training we provide on 01452 331331 or contact us through our contact page.

As an HR and Training company, we are constantly talking about the necessity for clear and consistent communication to aid organisational harmony and effectiveness. Technology companies recognise this too, which partially explains why there is so much competition for platforms like Teams and Zoom.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, when remote communication became a necessity, WhatsApp proved to be a useful tool for businesses to stay connected in real time. Its ease of use, accessibility, and familiarity make it an attractive option for both small and large businesses.

Despite its advantages however, WhatsApp also carries significant risks when used in a professional setting, particularly in maintaining appropriate standards of communication. As the new Workers Protection legislation looms, these concerns are more pressing than ever.

Unless you’re living in the dark ages, you’ll know that WhatsApp allows instant messaging, voice calls, and group chats, facilitating collaboration and problem-solving across teams. It’s particularly useful for businesses with remote workers or those who require quick communication outside regular business hours. The simplicity of WhatsApp means less time spent on formal emails or setting up conference calls, which can often slow down progress.

Since the pandemic, WhatsApp has become a cornerstone for many businesses looking to maintain contact with employees, clients, and customers in an informal yet effective way. It offers a personal touch and real-time connection, making it highly attractive for many teams.

However, WhatsApp’s strength in informal communication is also its greatest weakness when it comes to maintaining professionalism. As a platform traditionally associated with social interaction, it can be easy for employees to slip into casual, and sometimes inappropriate, behaviour. This cross-over between social and business communication can lead to significant risks for companies, particularly around the sharing of banter, memes, or inappropriate content.

One major risk is the blurring of boundaries between what is acceptable in social settings and what is appropriate in a professional environment. WhatsApp makes it easy to forward images, jokes, and messages that may be perfectly acceptable among friends but entirely inappropriate in a work context. For instance, an employee forwarding a ‘harmless’ meme or joke can inadvertently create an uncomfortable or hostile environment for others, potentially exposing the company to claims of harassment or discrimination.

With the upcoming Workers Protection legislation due to take effect at the end of October, businesses need to be more cautious than ever. This legislation places greater responsibility on employers to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, and that includes harassment that occurs in virtual spaces such as WhatsApp.

If inappropriate content is shared in a company WhatsApp group, even if meant as ‘banter,’ the employer could be held liable for failing to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment.

To mitigate these risks, businesses should consider the following:

Create Separate WhatsApp Groups: Designate WhatsApp groups for strictly business communication, and be clear that personal or socially oriented conversations should be made in separate, non-official groups that have no connection with the organisation. This helps maintain professionalism and keeps work-related communications clear and focused.

Establish Boundaries: Ensure all employees understand that professionalism must be maintained at all times, regardless of the platform used. Remind staff that WhatsApp communication is no different from email when it comes to standards of conduct.

Data Protection: Businesses should be aware that all communications on WhatsApp, including messages, images, and documents, could be subject to a Subject Access Request (SAR). If an employee files a SAR, all relevant information in the WhatsApp group would need to be shared, which could potentially expose the company if inappropriate content is found.

So, despite the tremendous benefits for business communication that Whatsapp offers, the informality of the platform presents significant risks, particularly regarding professionalism and potential claims of harassment. As the new Workers Protection legislation approaches, it is more important than ever for businesses to take proactive steps to safeguard against inappropriate use of platforms like WhatsApp.

Companies should implement a clear social media policy, which includes specific guidance on WhatsApp use for business purposes as well as other social media platforms like Facebook and X formerly known as Twitter. Because of its prolificacy, in some cases, it may be prudent to establish a separate WhatsApp policy to further clarify acceptable behaviour and protect the company from harassment claims. By putting these safeguards in place, businesses can enjoy the benefits of modern communication tools while reducing their exposure to claims of harassment.

As usual, you can contact us for support with this subject or any other employment related matter on 01452 331331 or contact us through our contact page.

Redundancy continues to be one of the most misunderstood processes within people management and employment law. Too often, employers think they can turn to redundancy as a shortcut for dismissing underperforming staff; usually because they have failed to deal with the underperformance in a structured way and it has now reached a point that is intolerable.

In reality, redundancy is about eliminating a role, not an individual. While redundancy can be an effective tool in situations where roles are genuinely no longer required, it is not appropriate for managing individual performance. Misusing redundancy to bypass proper performance management procedures is not only unfair to the employee but also exposes the business to legal risks, as well as reputational damage.

Redundancy is defined as a situation where an employer no longer needs work of a particular kind to be done or no longer needs it to be done at the location where employees are based. Importantly, redundancy relates to the role itself, not to the person in that role. For example, if a company reorganises and no longer requires a particular function, the role becomes redundant. However, the employee's individual performance has no bearing on whether redundancy is appropriate.

Using redundancy to remove a single underperforming employee by claiming their role is no longer needed is a surprisingly common mistake that employers make. If only one person is placed in a selection pool, especially where others in the organisation do the same or similar work, this can raise suspicions of foul play. Employment tribunals are likely to question whether the redundancy was genuine or simply a mechanism to sidestep dealing with the employee’s performance issues.

To be clear, if there are multiple employees that fulfil the redundant role, or a role similar to the redundant one, it is necessary to create a selection pool. This pool should include all employees performing similar roles either in the same location or other sites around the country, An objective selection process should then be followed. Failing to establish a selection pool, or creating a "pool of one" to target a specific employee, is a red flag.

When we at HR Champions are asked to support with redundancy and we are presented with a pool of one, we will always be sceptical. In order to protect our clients we must see cases and situations from the point of view of an employment tribunal, and a tribunal judge will always be suspicious of a pool of one.

The risks of a ‘pool of one’ include claims of unfair dismissal, potential tribunal costs, and reputational damage to the business. If the redundancy is seen as a smokescreen to remove an employee for performance-related reasons, the employer can face significant financial and legal consequences. Furthermore, this approach can damage trust within the workforce, leading to a decline in morale and productivity among remaining staff.

The key to avoiding using redundancy inappropriately starts with an objective look at why the organisation wants to part company with a particular individual. Ask yourself, “is the person, or is it the function?” If it is the former, then we should really be looking at alternatives.

If the problem is actually the underperformance of an individual, then we should be implementing robust performance processes.

Underperformance should be managed through formal procedures that include setting clear goals and expectations, providing feedback, and offering opportunities for improvement. If an employee continues to underperform, employers can follow a structured disciplinary procedure, which may eventually lead to dismissal if there is no improvement.

To make this fully effective, managers need to undergo the appropriate training to ensure they are both effective and consistent. They also need the time and space to manage their teams and implement the training. Too often, managers are overstretched, and performance management becomes reactive rather than proactive. Investing in management training, like our ILM courses, ensures that underperformance is identified and addressed early, reducing the likelihood of reaching a point where redundancy is even contemplated as a solution.

To re-cap; redundancy is a legitimate tool for businesses when a genuine business need arises, but it must not be misused as a way of dismissing underperforming staff. The risks of legal action and damage to company reputation are too high. Instead, underperformance should be managed through proper procedures, and managers must be equipped with the training and resources necessary to handle these situations effectively. By taking a proactive approach to performance management, businesses can avoid the pitfalls of redundancy misuse and maintain a fair, legally compliant workplace.

For support and advice with any employee related matters call us on 01452 331331 or contact us through our contact page.

According to recent polling by Opinium on behalf of IPPR, the TUC and Persuasion UK, three-quarters of employers back the Labour Government’s proposed plans to strengthen employment rights, with many believing that improved job security and better rights can lead to higher productivity, healthier employees, and improved retention.

While few would disagree that workers with greater job security are more likely to perform better, this one-sided approach misses a crucial point. Namely, protecting employers from unscrupulous employees.

You should be aware by now that Labour’s proposed legislation aims to introduce a variety of new rights for employees, including the ability to request flexible working from day one, strengthened protections against unfair dismissal, and sick pay from the first day of employment.

These measures are undoubtedly aimed at curbing the actions of rogue employers, who exploit loopholes in existing laws to the detriment of their workforce. In this sense, the legislation serves a worthy purpose: no one wants to see employees mistreated or unfairly dismissed.

However, by tarring all employers with the same brush, this legislation risks alienating good employers who already strive to maintain fair and safe workplaces. Just as the entire landlord sector in the UK seems been demonised by the actions of a rogue few, this proposed legislation assumes all employers are guilty of malpractice unless proven otherwise.

While the focus on workers' rights is commendable, the legislation does little to address the reality that some employees take advantage of the current system, making it difficult for employers to manage them effectively. Good employers face challenges when dealing with employees who consistently abuse absence policies, perform poorly, or demonstrate insubordinate behaviour. And we should know; we take calls from clients with these issues nearly every day.

Under existing laws, the process of dismissing an underperforming employee is already a lengthy and complicated one, and Labour’s proposed changes may make it even more difficult for employers to deal with troublesome staff.
For example, nobody should be unfairly dismissed, but introducing “day one rights” for protection against unfair dismissal will give rogue employees a reason to pursue a resource hungry tribunal claim, unwilling to admit their own performance or misconduct is at fault.

Instead of fostering an environment of accountability, the new rules could shield employees who are underperforming or taking advantage of workplace policies.

Furthermore, with policies like sick pay from the first day of absence, good employers may be left vulnerable to abuse from employees who take advantage of these rights without legitimate cause.

Strengthening worker protections is an admirable goal, and according to the survey by Opinium, most of the 1,000 employers questioned are in favour of giving their employees greater job security and improved rights. However, it’s important to strike a balance between protecting workers and providing businesses with the flexibility they need to deal with problematic employees.

There needs to be an acknowledgment that not all employees act in good faith, just as not all employers engage in exploitative practices. Legislation that protects workers without giving employers the tools to deal with underperformance or misconduct risks creating a system where good employers are punished and unscrupulous employees are shielded from accountability.

Whilst Labour’s proposed legislation represents a step forward in protecting workers, it falls short in addressing some of the common challenges that arise, just for being an employer.

While the focus on curbing the actions of rogue employers is important, it should not come at the expense of leaving businesses vulnerable to those employees who exploit the system. As the debate continues, it’s crucial that lawmakers find a way to protect both employees and employers, ensuring a fair and equitable workplace for all.

For support and advice with any employee related matters call us on 01452 331331 or contact us throurh our contact page.

Managing sickness absence remains one of the big issues that we are continually asked to provide support and advice for. According to the ONS, the UK has circa 2.5 million people who are economically inactive owing to long term sickness absence; so clearly, sickness absence affects a high proportion of employers.

With continually rising costs, including wage costs, effective absence management is crucial for maintaining productivity and operational efficiency.

There is an understanding that short-term absences are more disruptive for an organisation than long-term absences. This is because they require immediate adjustments to workflow, can often mean finding last-minute replacements, and can create a ripple effect of extra workload on colleagues.

This in turn can lead to higher stress levels and potential disruption to the rest of the team, all whilst occurring more frequently and without opportunity to prepare, as with longer planned or informed absences.

One method that has gained traction in assessing employee absence is the Bradford Factor.

The Bradford Factor is a mathematical formula used to measure employee absenteeism by giving more weight to frequent short-term absences than to infrequent long-term absences. Essentially, having a compendium of Bradford scores is an easy way to get a handle on absenteeism and quantify it in a meaningful way for your organisation.

Its name originates from the belief that it was developed at Bradford University School of Management in the 1980s which researched the theory that short, frequent absences are more disruptive to a business than longer absences. Although whether this is actually the case is disputed.

The Bradford Factor formula is:

S² x D = B

Where:

• S stands for ‘spells,’ or the total number of separate absences by an employee over a set period
• D is the total number of days of absence over that period
• B is the resulting Bradford Factor

In most cases, this set period is one year (52 weeks).

The advantages of Using the Bradford Factor are:

1. Objective Measurement: The Bradford Factor provides a clear, numerical measure of absenteeism, allowing for objective comparisons between employees.
2. Focus on Disruptiveness: By emphasising frequent short-term absences, the Bradford Factor highlights the type of absenteeism that typically causes more operational disruption.
3. Management Tool: It helps HR professionals identify patterns of absence that may indicate underlying issues, such as health problems or job dissatisfaction, enabling early intervention.

There are disadvantages in using the Bradford Factor too:

1. It does not account for the reasons behind absences, potentially penalising employees with legitimate short-term health issues.
2. There is a potential for Misuse: If used over-rigidly, it can lead to unfair treatment and may not consider individual circumstances, such as disabilities covered under the Equality Act.
3. Staff Morale: Over-reliance on the Bradford Factor can negatively impact employee morale, particularly if employees feel they are being penalised for unavoidable absences.

So, how might you use the Bradford Factor. First, let’s look at this with some examples.

Example 1

An employee, Davis, has an absence record of 6 separate absences, each lasting 2 days. over the last year. The calculation would be:

62 (= 36) x 12 = 432

A high Bradford Factor score of 432 suggests frequent short-term absences. This could indicate potential issues such as recurring health problems or dissatisfaction with work. An employer might decide to investigate further, offer support, or address underlying issues. However, care must be taken to understand the context of these absences before making any decisions.

Example 2

Another employee, Sameera, has the absence record 1 absence lasting 10 days. The Bradford Factor calculation would be:

12 (= 1) x 10 = 10

A low Bradford Factor score of 10 indicates a single long-term absence. While this is less disruptive than frequent short-term absences, it may still warrant investigation to understand the cause and offer appropriate support. An employer might provide resources for recovery or make adjustments to the employee’s role to aid their return to work.

Whilst the Bradford Factor can be a useful tool in managing absenteeism, but it should not be used in isolation. Employers must consider the broader context of each employee's absences and ensure that any actions taken are fair, reasonable, and compliant with employment laws. For instance, penalising an employee solely on the basis that they have a high Bradford Factor score without understanding the reasons behind their absences could lead to claims of discrimination or unfair treatment.

Consider also a broader view. If employees in a particular department consistently score higher Bradford Factors then perhaps this is reflecting poor management in that department and it is actually the team manager that should be looked into.

We also strongly recommend return to work interviews following any unplanned absence. This not only enables a fuller understanding of the reason for absence, it provides an opportunity to make any reasonable adjustments for the employee or may undercover a wider issue.

So, a valuable metric for assessing absenteeism, highlighting the impact of frequent short-term absences on business operations, the Bradford Factor should be used as only as part of a broader, more holistic management. By combining the Bradford Factor with a thorough understanding of individual circumstances, HR professionals and managers can make informed decisions that support both employee well-being and organisational efficiency.
For more help and support with absence management or other issues highlighted her call us on 01452 331331 or reach us through our contact page.

The new Labour Government has today announced it is considering the introduction of a 4-day working week as part of its broader push for enhanced workers' rights. Under this proposal, employees would have the right to request a 4-day week through a flexible working request, potentially from day one of their employment if Labour’s other work plans are adopted.

While the idea of a shorter working week might seem appealing to many, it raises significant questions and challenges for UK businesses and in particular, SMEs. Here’s a closer look at how this policy could work and the issues it may create.

The proposed 4-day work week doesn’t mean reducing the number of hours worked. Instead, it would involve compressing the standard 35-40 hour workweek into four days instead of five. This means employees would work longer hours on the days they are in the office—typically around 9-10 hours per day.

For example, if an employee currently works 8 hours per day over 5 days, they would work 10 hours per day over 4 days under the new model. The total number of hours worked would remain the same, but spread over fewer days.

One of the biggest challenges this proposal presents is the need for many businesses to maintain operations over the full 5-day working week, if not seven days a week in some sectors. While some businesses might be able to stagger employees’ days off to ensure coverage, this won’t be feasible for all.

In customer-facing industries, such as retail, hospitality, and leisure, businesses rely on being open and staffed every day of the week. Compressing the workweek for employees in these sectors could lead to significant staffing challenges and potentially higher costs, as businesses might need to hire additional part-time or temporary staff to fill the gaps left by employees on their day off. Where demand is often highest on weekends, the need for consistent staffing levels throughout the week means that a 4-day work week might simply not be practical.

Similarly, in the care sector, where continuity of care is critical, reducing the number of working days could compromise the quality of service provided to clients.

Another concern for employers is the potential loss of the ‘goodwill’ hours that employees often contribute beyond their contracted hours. In many workplaces, it’s common for employees to start work a little early or stay late to finish tasks, without these hours being formally counted.

Under a compressed 4-day week, those extra hours would likely be absorbed into the longer working days. This could result in employees being less willing or able to extend their workday beyond the required hours, as they may already be working close to their maximum capacity each day. For employers, this could mean a reduction in overall productivity or the need to adjust expectations around the completion of work.

The proposal for a 4-day work week, as part of the Labour Work Plan and a broader push for flexible working rights, could bring benefits to employees in terms of improved work-life balance and reduced burnout. However, for businesses, particularly those requiring consistent 5- or 7-day coverage, the challenges are significant.

Although the Government have promised not to impose the idea, employers may feel pressured into implementing it in order to remain competitive to new talent. They will need to carefully consider how they can maintain operational efficiency and productivity if such a policy is implemented.

While some industries might adapt to this change by restructuring work patterns or hiring additional staff, others may find it difficult to accommodate such flexibility without compromising service levels or incurring additional costs. As the conversation around a 4-day work week continues, it’s clear that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, and businesses will need to weigh the pros and cons carefully before making any changes to their work arrangements.

The 4-day week is on of a raft of measures and proposals being floated by the New Labour Government. Make sure you attend our seminars and breakfast meetings where we will be covering the impact and implications they hold for UK businesses.

For support and advice with any issues raised contact us on 01452 331331 or reach us through our contact page.

A story blowing upon the news today is the dismissal from the BBC of Match of the Day and The One Show presenter Jermaine Jenas following allegations relating to workplace behaviour. The allegations relate to “digital communications” to workplace colleagues.

One might reasonably surmise that the allegations relate to text or Whatsapp messages that have been unwanted by the recipient and could potentially be of a sexual nature.

The dismissal is a potentially career ending decision for Mr Jenas. The fact that the BBC has acted so quickly and moved immediately to dismissal without a period of suspension means that they have already done a full investigation and considered this a slam-dunk case.

The corporation’s speedy response could be an overt signal that they have changed their ways following the backlash in their handling of the Huw Edwards case. Much more likely however is that the BBC, aware of the new Worker Protection Act being introduced in October, have actually got their act together and have moved decisively rather than open themselves up to be the test case for the new legislation.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last few months, you should know that the clock is ticking for the implementation of this legislation which is set to enhance protections against sexual harassment in the workplace. We’ve been banging on about it for months and employers really must act now if they haven’t already.

This isn't just about compliance—it's about safeguarding your business from severe legal, financial, and reputational damage.

To be clear, under the new vicarious liability guidelines, employers can be held accountable for their employees' actions unless they can prove they took all reasonable steps to prevent harassment. Reacting after the fact won't cut it anymore. If your business is found lacking, expect harsh penalties, including potential increases of up to 25% in compensation awards for victims. Beyond the financial hit, the blow to your company’s reputation could be even more damaging—and far harder to recover from.

With the law coming into force in a little over two months, there's no time to waste. Implementing changes across an organization takes time, and training staff is never straightforward.

Here’s what you need to do immediately:

1. Review and Update Policies: Conduct a thorough review of your harassment and bullying policies. Make sure they are crystal clear, robust, and compliant with the new regulations. The old excuses—like ignoring inappropriate behaviour as "banter"—won’t fly. Clearly outline the consequences for policy breaches.
   
   
2. Implement Policies Effectively: Updating policies is just the first step. You must ensure these policies are communicated clearly to all employees. A consistent approach is key. Have every employee sign off to confirm they’ve been briefed and understand the new rules.
   
   
3. Training and Awareness: Regular, comprehensive training for all staff, including management, is non-negotiable. Make sure everyone knows what constitutes harassment, the company’s policies, and the legal ramifications of not adhering to them. Recurrent training is essential to keep awareness high.
   
   
   
4. Management training is key to support managers  firstly to recognise what is inappropriate, secondly to check that they are role modelling the right behaviours and thirdly providing them with tactics and interventions to stop and deal with inappropriate behaviour in the moment and to follow through with any consequences.
   
   
5. Establish Clear Reporting Channels: Employees must feel safe and supported when reporting harassment. Set up multiple, confidential reporting mechanisms. This not only encourages victims to come forward but also demonstrates your commitment to a safe work environment.
   
   
6. Foster an Inclusive Culture: A culture of respect and inclusion is your best defence against harassment. Leaders must model the right behaviour and act swiftly against any inappropriate actions. The message, re-enforced daily, from the top is crucial.

NB: Don't forget that behaviour outside work can constitute workplace harassment, eg. sports and social activities, staying away on business, a quick drink after work or the office party. In our experience, we're seeing the greatest effect and activity through social media platforms and messaging apps. 

The Worker Protection Act signals a critical shift in workplace standards. By taking decisive action now, your business can stay ahead of the curve, not only complying with new regulations but also creating a safer, more inclusive workplace. This isn’t just about avoiding legal troubles—it’s about building a respectful work environment that benefits everyone.

Don’t wait until your company is making headlines for all the wrong reasons. We can help with policy reviews, implementation, and staff training, including our Dignity at Work program. Act now—call us on 01452 331331 or email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Amongst the plans for worker reforms proposed by the new Labour Government and announced in the King’s Speech last week is the party’s “right to switch off from work”. The plan will see workers empowered to disconnect from their jobs outside regular working hours.

Under new rules to be introduced by the Labour government, workers will be able to ignore work-related calls and emails and outside of their contracted hours and refuse to take on extra work in the evenings and at weekends.
The plans are also expected to extend to workers’ annual leave, so managers would not be allowed to ask employees to carry out work-related tasks, which might be answering emails, calls or queries, whilst they were on holiday.

The new plans, believed to be brainchild of deputy prime minister Angela Rayner, come amongst a raft of new measures including a ban on zero-hours contracts, full worker rights from day and making sick pay available from the first day of absence without waiting days.

The idea of spending less time at work and having more quality time to share with family has long been seen as a vote-winner for Labour and appeared in the party’s manifest during the previous General Election.

Employee wellbeing and work/life balance are phrases that have appeared in the workplace with increasing regularity over recent years. Being able to request flexible working arrangements is now a statutory right for employees and employers must be seen to give all such requests due consideration. Indeed, employers need to present a strong business case to deny flexible working requests.

Currently in the UK, there is no official right to disconnect from work, but employers can implement their own policies. Legislation does state that a working week should be no more than 48 hours on average, however, if a boss wants to contact their employee outside of these hours, they can.

There was some discussion a few years ago over how to determine when an employee actually started their working day. In a world of electronic communication, many workers would choose to “triage” email on their mobile phones during their commute so that only the important ones were left to deal with by the time they reached their desks. Whether the commute should therefor be classed as work time was bought into question.

The concept of being able to switch off is a good one in principle, however ensuring that an employee is not bothered during their holiday may come down to how well a workload handover to colleagues is implemented, or how well they have tied up any loose ends of business they are dealing with before they leave.

There is also the enormous impact of company culture to consider. Even if bosses and managers uphold the ideology of not contacting staff outside of work, employees may find a great deal of peer pressure. This may make it feel impossible to leave work without putting in a reasonable dose of extra time in order to meet targets or complete projects to schedule.

Furthermore, a restriction on contacting employees outside of work hours may cause more employers to insist on their pound of flesh during designated work time. This may lead to more organisation removing the option for employees to work from home and may impact wider decisions around flexible working requests.

Unlike other measures, the right to switch off is unlikely to be enshrined in law but will more likely become a code of practice for businesses. Notwithstanding, there are bound to be employees who will apply the new rules as strictly as they are able so it’s worth making plans about how a policy will be communicated sooner rather than later.

HR Champions will of course support you with this. Call us on 01452 331331 or email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Recent news stories regarding President Joe Biden facing calls to step down from his presidential election campaign owing to concerns about his cognitive and physical abilities highlight the issue of an ageing workforce on a global stage.

We tend to accept that with age often comes diminishing health. It's an unavoidable fact that as we get older, we may become less supple, lose muscular strength, and are increasingly affected by worn joints and connective tissue. Such physical changes can significantly impact job performance, particularly for manual workers. Businesses operating on tight margins may face difficult decisions if an older worker's productivity falls below a profitable level. Additionally, health and safety considerations must remain paramount.

Dementia and other cognitive decline have also become considerations for employers in recent years. At HR Champions, we have encountered cases where employers have had to manage employees showing signs of senility. As a mental health issue, dementia is potentially covered by the Equality Act 2010, meaning employers must make reasonable adjustments for affected employees. However, dementia is notoriously difficult to diagnose, especially in its early stages, complicating any such adjustments.

The default retirement age in the UK was abolished in 2011 so there is no longer a set age at which employees must retire. This change acknowledges that many people are capable of and wish to continue working well past traditional retirement ages. However, it also raises the question: who decides when someone should retire?

Without a default retirement age, it is up to the individual when it is time to step down. This flexibility supports the rights of older workers but also requires careful management to balance business needs with employee rights.

We are continually promoting staff appraisals as an effective management tool and employers might consider applying an appraisal system throughout an employee’s career to assess their ability to perform their job effectively continually. While this approach seems practical, it has inherent flaws. An individual might not agree with the feedback and measurement of performance, leading to conflict. There are also legal and ethical issues to consider when exiting a loyal and long serving employee on the grounds of capability.

Age discrimination contravenes the Equality Act, posing significant risks for businesses that attempt to force older employees to resign based solely on age. It also comes into effect at recruitment as job candidates cannot be refused a fair crack at a job application just because someone on the recruiting team thinks they are too old.

Another layer to this issue is the proposed changes to the National Minimum Wage by the new Labour Government, which aims to set it equal for all adults. While this move is designed to ensure fairness and reduce exploitation, it inadvertently reduces the financial incentive for businesses to hire young people. When the cost of employing a young, inexperienced worker is the same as hiring an older, more experienced one, employers may lean towards the latter, potentially exacerbating youth unemployment.

Despite these challenges, there are significant benefits to employing an older workforce. The experience and skills gap often seen in younger employees can be mitigated by retaining older workers longer. Their knowledge and expertise can be invaluable, offering opportunities for mentoring and skill transfer to younger employees. Additionally, older employees tend to be more less transient, preferring job security and work-life balance over career advancement and higher salaries.

Employers should engage in strategic workforce planning, which includes having open discussions about career planning regardless of an employee's age. These discussions allow employers to make informed decisions about recruitment, development, and promotion at the appropriate times, ensuring a balanced and effective workforce.

Managing an aging workforce requires a delicate balance between legal obligations, ethical considerations, and business needs. By recognising the value of older employees, implementing fair appraisal systems, and planning strategically, businesses can navigate these challenges effectively. Age should not be the sole determinant of an employee's worth or capability, and with careful management, the benefits of an experienced workforce can be fully realised.

For help and support in managing employee issues and developing a succession plan, contact HR Champions at 01452 331331 or email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.