Whilst exhibiting at the World of Learning Conference this week, we spoke to dozens of delegates and visitors from an array of businesses spanning many different sectors. Well, that was the point of being there. Despite the variety of backgrounds and businesses represented, a theme kept recurring during many of the conversations; that of the issues created by accidental managers.

Predictably, most attendees at the conference were involved in training, development and HR within their organisations. However, many expressed frustration at the lack of planning their own organisations undertook when rewarding good performance by individuals with promotion to a position that entailed supervising or managing others.

The rise of the accidental manager is something we have blogged about in the past and it clearly remains a significant issue. Individuals, often exceptional in their primary roles, find themselves elevated to managerial positions not based on their leadership abilities but rather their performance in a particular field. This path, while initially seeming like a just reward for dedication and talent, can lead to significant challenges for both the individual and the wider organisation.

Examples can be seen across a range of industries. For instance, an excellent software developer whose code is error free, develops innovative solutions and leads their peers in productivity might get promoted to ‘lead Developer’ or ‘Development Manager’ in recognition of their contribution to the company.

Suddenly however, their daily tasks shift from coding to managing a team: setting objectives, handling conflicts, offering feedback, and ensuring project deliverables. Yet, this person has never been trained in these managerial tasks. Their brilliance in coding doesn't automatically translate to ability in management. They have become an accidental manager.

The crux of the issue is that technical expertise and managerial skills require distinct and separate sets of skills. Being a whizz in sales, engineering, or design doesn't mean someone can effortlessly handle team dynamics, set clear expectations, or foster a motivating work environment. These skills, which we would consider vital for successful and productive management, rarely come naturally. They require training, experience, and often, a natural propensity.

The consequences of not recognising this can be very damaging. Typical consequences include:

• Employee Dissatisfaction: A manager ill-equipped to handle team dynamics can inadvertently create a toxic work environment. Miscommunications, favouritism, or simply the inability to provide constructive feedback can lead to disillusioned teams.
  
  
• Decreased Productivity: Without clear direction and objectives, teams can flounder. A manager's role is not just supervisory but also directional. The absence of clear leadership can adversely impact team output.
  
  
• High Staff Turnover: Consistently poor management is a frequent reason employees leave companies. The cost of hiring and training new employees is substantial and diverts resources, making high turnover rates a significant concern for businesses.
  
  
• Personal Burnout: For the accidental manager, the sudden and unexpected challenges can lead to overwhelming stress and burnout, affecting both their professional and personal life.

Addressing accidental manager syndrome is crucial for the health an prosperity of businesses. Organisations should consider:

• Tailored Training Programmes: Upon promoting an individual to a managerial role, and preferably prior to promotion, businesses should offer training focussed on leadership, conflict resolution, and team dynamics. Our ILM Level 2 Certificate in Leadership and Management is a perfect solution here.
  
  
• Mentoring: Pairing new and potential managers with seasoned leaders can provide them with invaluable insights and guidance; not only in managerial skills but in the nuances and dynamics of the particular organisation.
• Feedback Mechanisms: Regular and genuine feedback from their teams can help new managers understand areas of improvement. The organisation must offer support and solutions for addressing any shortcomings of course.

Whilst promoting top-performing employees seems like the logical next step, businesses must recognise the distinct skill set managerial roles demand. With proper training and support, accidental managers can transition to intentional, effective leaders, motivating their teams and ultimately contributing to the overall success of the organisation.

Planning the appropriate path for your new and potential managers means you can talk to us about training them for career progression rather than about how to exit them from the business after six months for underperformance. Call us on 01452 331331, or e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Our HR and Employment Law helpline has proven to be quite a reliable bellwether over the years of current and imminent issues that employers are facing. Over the last week, the most consistent topic for support calls has been Covid. A number of clients from a variety of industries have had a rise in absences with Covid cited as the cause.

The ONS has stopped reporting on Covid cases since March this year but the Government has responded to the obvious need in making health information available to the general public; particularly after the high number of flu cases last year. At the end of September 2023, the UK Health Security Agency launched the Covid and flu Dashboard for England.

Judging by the number of queries we have dealt with recently, the timing for the launch of the new dashboard couldn’t be better. Indeed, the dashboard reports an increase in Covid cases of 29% in the last seven days.

With a rise in Covid cases practically an inevitability, we thought it a good idea to recap on employer responsibilities regarding the disease. Now that most of the country has been vaccinated, Covid doesn’t hold the ‘status’ it once did so it’s important that employers are aware of the position as there may actually be a tendency to overreact.

Firstly, as in all cases regarding health and wellbeing, the overriding consideration is the employer’s duty of care. We must be mindful of our responsibility to protect the health, safety and welfare of our employees and other people who may be affected by our work activities. Employers must do whatever is reasonably practicable to achieve this.

Guidance remains unchanged in that people who test positive or who have Covid symptoms should try to stay at home and avoid contact with other people for 5 days. They should also avoid contact with those that are higher risk from Covid for 10 days. This period starts the day after a positive test or when symptoms began.

Covid is notorious in that it affects people in different ways. Some people only suffer mild symptoms whilst others can feel quite poorly. If an employee has the option to work from home then our recommendation is that they can do so if they are genuinely well enough. If an employee is too ill to work for sustained periods or, say, to attend a meeting on Zoom or Teams, then they should declare themselves as sick and should not work.

This goes for all illnesses. Sickness absence is there to enable the ill to rest and recover. Working whilst not well enough to do so may only exacerbate the condition or prolong it. Indeed, some studies suggest that cases of Long-Covid are higher where infected individuals haven’t rested.

If an employee with Covid works in an environment where home-working isn’t an option, in a factory or on a construction site for example, and that person feels well enough to work, then the employer should have a stance that they stick to consistently. This might include allowing them into work whilst taking suitable precautions such as alerting all other workers and wearing a mask.

With the continuing tough economic climate, employees are likely to want to avoid being off sick as they will miss out on pay. They may be however, potentially putting their colleagues, customers, and your business continuity at risk. On the other hand, employers may struggle if they are short staffed.

Where there are vulnerable individuals in the workplace and cases of Covid are known, the vulnerable could be offered home working where possible or offered a segregated area to work in. Vulnerable individuals should also be taking their own measures.

Covid remains a highly transmissible disease that poses a significant risk to business continuity when it is identified in the workplace. To summarise, our advice therefore is:

• If a person has Covid symptoms or tests positive, they should work from home where this is possible to act in line with current Government guidance and for at least the 5-day period.
  
  
• If an infected employee’s position is one where they are able to work from home, but they are too ill to work, then again, they should be on sick leave. Their absence should be used to rest and recuperate.
  
  
• If the infected employee’s job is one where they are not able to work from home, but they feel well enough to work then they can come into work should their employers policy allow it.
  
  
• Employers who allow Covid positive individuals into the workplace potentially put their colleagues at risk (particularly the vulnerable which includes those who are pregnant) and expose themselves to having more employees being sick.

In terms of sick pay, Covid is now treated in the same way as any other sick absence and the normal sick pay rules apply. This includes waiting days prior to SSP being activated, but of course company sick pay, where it is paid, will have different rules depending on the employer.

We think this should cover most scenarios but if you have situation that isn’t covered here, were available to help on 01452 331331 or via email e-mail at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

This week, research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), which analysed rates of absence in more than 900 organisations, reported that sickness absence in the UK is currently the highest it has been for a ten years. On average, staff took an average of 7.8 days sick in the last year, up from 5.8 days pre-Covid.

The numbers underscore the impact of external influences such as the aftermath of the pandemic and the ongoing cost of living crisis. Such an increase in absences, largely attributed to stress and anxiety, carry profound implications not only for the employees directly affected but for their colleagues and ultimately the employers.

Whilst Covid is still very much amongst us, and we are continuously informed of potential new strains whose impact is as yet unknown, we cannot attribute the spike in sickness absence purely to the virus. Apart from people being physically affected by the virus, the ongoing psychological and emotional toll has been profound. Changes to work environments, personal relationships, and general uncertainty have amplified feelings of stress and anxiety for many.

Moreover, just as we seemed to be moving towards recovery, the cost of living crisis has reared its head. For many UK residents, the basic act of making ends meet has become a relentless source of pressure. With increased prices on essential goods and services, paired with stagnant or even reduced income in many sectors, financial stress has become a constant backdrop to daily life.

The relationship between financial wellbeing and mental health is well-documented. A tough economic position goes further than disposable income and can result in disrupted sleep, strained relationships, and reduced capacity to handle other life stresses.

As employers, we must take note of our employees’ wellbeing to overt the potential business impact that sickness absence threatens, such as:

• Reduced Productivity: Obviously, with employees absent, tasks get delayed, and overall productivity diminishes. This can be particularly challenging for smaller businesses where every team member plays a pivotal role.
• Financial Strain: Businesses often face direct costs due to employee absences, be it in the form of sick pay or hiring temporary staff. Moreover, the indirect costs, such as lost sales or reduced service levels, can exacerbate the financial effect.
• Team Morale: Regular absences can place added pressure on the rest of the team, leading to overwork and, consequently, even more potential sickness absences, setting off a vicious cycle.
• Reputation: In client-facing roles or businesses where meeting deadlines is paramount, frequent absences can impact client or customer satisfaction, potentially tarnishing a company’s reputation.

Clearly then, doing more in attempting to avert instances of sickness absence in their own organisations can only be beneficial for employers. Some pro-active steps to consider include:

• Prioritising Mental Health: Instigate mental health initiatives and support within the company. You may already have insurance or a group health scheme that provides ancillary counselling services. Look up our own mental health training courses too.
• Flexible Work Arrangements: Laws around flexible working will be changing soon so don’t get caught out and maybe be a little more pro-active in your approach.
• Open Communication Channels: Create an environment where employees feel comfortable discussing their challenges. This can help in early identification of potential issues and allow timely interventions. Confidentiality is crucial here.
• Financial Guidance: Given that the cost of living crisis is a source of stress for many, offering financial literacy workshops or providing resources for personal financial management can help alleviate some concerns and help employees to plan.
• Regular Check-ins: Managers should regularly check in with their teams, not just about work, but also about their well-being. Understanding the personal and professional challenges they face can aid better overall support.
• Training for Leadership: Equip leaders and managers with training to identify signs of stress and anxiety in their teams. Again, our Mental Health for Managers workshop is a good starting point.
• Encourage Breaks: Something as simple as promoting a culture where taking short breaks is normalised can have surprisingly positive outcomes.

Stress and anxiety-related sickness absences poses a continual challenge for UK businesses. However, with a proactive and empathetic approach, employers can make strides in not only reducing these absences but also fostering a healthier and more supportive work environment.

We offer a range of solutions that can support you with this. Just get in touch for a conversation about what we can offer you. Call 01452 331331 or email supportThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

We’ve had a flurry of enquiries this week from clients asking us about recovering training costs from employees when they leave; what are the legalities and how to go about it. With price and interest rate rises squeezing margins ever tighter, it’s no surprise that businesses are looking for cost savings wherever they can.

It’s also no surprise that we’re seeing more instances of this situation arising as a new generation of workers are generally more transient in their careers and move between jobs and employers a lot more readily than employees in the past. A job for life in terms of requisites for workers has been replaced more latterly by career progression opportunities and variety.

A concern for employers when discussing training for their employees is that the employees might leave soon afterwards, and so the employer does not fully benefit from the expense. Such arguments don’t really carry any weight as research strongly suggests that employees are much less likely to leave an employer who invests in them through initiatives such as training.

However, we recognise that not all employees fit that mould and that employers want some reassurances that their staff aren’t going to jump ship as soon as they’ve been given the opportunity to improve their CVs with a qualification. Or if they do, that the money they have invested can be reclaimed.

Previously, a formal training agreement would have been the route for this, but since the introduction of the Government’s Good Work Plan 2020, what monies will be recovered and how needs to be a contractual clause.

Employers should note that not all training costs are recoverable. Common ‘on the job’ training from a colleague that doesn’t incur an external cost can’t be recovered, neither can training that is required for the employee to do their job such as forklift driver training for a warehouse operative. Equally, compulsory Health & Safety training can’t be recovered. This might include working at heights for a scaffold company or manual lifting for a care worker.

Some soft skills training or training that enables delegates to gain a professional qualification that they can add to their CV and so may be useful outside an employee’s existing job, can be subject to a recovery. As mentioned, this is now contractual so a clause needs to appear in your employee’s contract of employment rather than in your staff handbook where it may have resided previously.

Your training cost recovery clauses can’t be applied retrospectively; so make sure it’s in contracts prior to training commencing. A consultation period may be relevant for existing employees as you’ll be fundamentally changing terms.
Cost recovery should be reasonable and so should on a reducing, sliding scale on the basis that some benefit of the training will be garnered by the employer over time. We usually recommend that 100% is recoverable if the employee leaves in the first three months following the training, gradually reducing to zero after 12 months have past.

You can take the costs out of your employees final pay when they leave. Be sure to show a clear calculation of any deductions which in addition to training costs might include holiday that has been taken but not accrued. Remember though that there are rules around ensuring that the employee’s pay doesn’t fall below minimum wage, so be sure to bear this in mind.

Finally, because this is now a contractual matter, you may want to make it clear at interview stage that this is a policy you enforce. It will give candidates the option to deselect themselves if they don’t want to be bound by it and won’t lead to any surprises for them on the first day. Going forward, if the training falls within the potential repayment category, ensure you are clear about this with the employee prior to the training commencing.

For further help and support with all matters relating to contacts of employment and staff handbooks, call us on 01452 331331 or email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

This week, the Government has launched its new national suicide prevention strategy, through which it pledges to reduce the number of suicides in England in two and a half years. The five year strategy, which also aims to improve support for those bereaved by suicide and for people who have self-harmed, was announced after an estimated 5275 deaths by suicide were registered in 2022.

The UK Government has embarked on several initiatives focused on improving the holistic well-being of its citizens. From earlier mental health programmes to the broader ambition of promoting healthier lifestyles, the government's dedication to creating a resilient, content, and prosperous society is evident.

One of the action points laid out in the Suicide Prevention Strategy is that the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) will look for opportunities to improve the government’s role in supporting employers to improve the support they provide for the mental wellbeing of themselves and their employees. Options include the revision of first-aid guidance to bring parity to managing the risks of mental and physical health in the workplace.

Indeed, later this year, the second reading of the Mental Health First Aid bill will be heard in the house of commons which will make it a legal requirement for employers to appoint a nominated Mental Health First Aider.

Another bill that will receive it’s second reading in the coming months is the Bullying and Respect at Work Bill. Bullying is seen as one of the main drivers for suicide and in order for the government to achieve their pledge, far more stringent measures to tackle workplace bullying will be laid at the door of employers.

Historically, matters of bullying and harassment in the workplace were treated with a degree of scepticism or simply passed off as banter, often resulting in victims feeling unheard or afraid to come forward. Recognising the detrimental impact of such behaviour, not only on individual victims but also on the broader workplace environment and morale, the proposed bill is designed to make employers more accountable.

The central concept of the bill is the idea that employers should be culpable for instances of bullying and harassment within their institutions. The result will be workplaces that are not only more respectful and inclusive but also more productive and healthy.

To meet the requirements of the bill, employers will have to implement stricter anti-bullying policies, offer training programmes to employees, and actively work on fostering a culture where every individual feels valued, safe, and heard. Employers will also need to ensure that they have clear reporting mechanisms in place and that managers are able and equipped to follow them.

We may also see a task force put into place who are granted powers to close down organisations where a toxic workplace environment exists. Whilst this may seem extreme, it is a testament to just how seriously the government is taking the matter.

Before we jump to accusations of a ‘Nanny State’, let’s not lose sight of the fact that a proactive approach to combat bullying not only protects employees but also can lead to numerous benefits for the organisation. A positive, inclusive environment can lead to increased productivity, higher employee retention rates, and a stronger company reputation and brand.

Initiatives concerning mental health and workplace bullying and harassment form just a part of the UK Government's broader strategy to improve the overall wellbeing of the nation. Several other programmes aim to address other issues and they have launched campaigns to promote physical activity and healthier eating habits, thereby attempting to tackle the rising cases of obesity and lifestyle-related illnesses.

It may be only a matter of time before employers are expected to take a role in supporting these areas too as the Government strives to improve the overall physical and mental health of the nation.

In the meantime, talk to us about our Preventing Bullying and Harassment at work training, the first step to promoting an inclusive and welcoming workplace environment to get you ahead of the competition in delivering your employer responsibilities. Cal us on 01452 331331 or email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

In today's dynamic and interconnected business landscape, it is crucial for HR professionals to recognise their pivotal role in shaping not only the strategic direction of the company but also the culture that permeates throughout. As stewards of both company vision and workforce morale, HR professionals and senior managers play an indispensable role in driving a culture of openness, understanding, and support when it comes to mental health. We will explore the profound impact that mental health can have on individuals, teams and the business as a whole. We will then examine the strategies that you can embed to promote a positive workplace culture. 

This two day course, accredited by NUCO, is suitable for any senior manager or HR professional who has a responsibility for creating a positive workplace culture and supporting employee’s mental health. 

Course Content 

Get in touch now to discuss your options 

We find ourselves talking about bullying, harassment, and inappropriate behaviour in the workplace again after recent accusations levelled against UK branches of McDonalds have reignited the issue. It’s a critical matter that appears to have been buried beneath corporate culture within the organisation. However, this is not a stand-alone incident. It is a representation of a pervasive problem deeply entrenched in workplaces across numerous industries and speaks volumes of our basic human instincts.

Coincidentally, the Bullying and Respect at Work Bill, proposed in the Commons last week by MP Rachael Maskell has come at an opportune time. The bill proposes to define 'workplace bullying' in the UK, and make it an offence that can be taken to tribunal and for which a perpetrator can be dismissed. Currently, a worker who feels forced to leave a place of work because they are bullied, must rely on wrongful or constructive dismissal if they want to bring a case.

Despite there being numerous discussions and studies around the subject, a legally binding definition has yet to be confirmed. A proper definition will not only provide clarity and uniformity, but will also become a cornerstone for constructing effective policies and guidelines, aiding prevention and resolution.

Workplace bullying can manifest in various forms - from direct confrontations to subtle, psychological torment. The ramifications are severe, impacting not just the employee's mental health, but also the overall productivity of the organisation. Moreover, the collateral damage extends to the company’s morale, trust, and reputation.

In the McDonalds case, a group of employees voiced their experiences, alleging that the company turned a blind eye to their complaints of bullying and harassment, including sexual harassment and unwanted touching. Such allegations clearly affect McDonalds’s reputation, and call into question the effectiveness of its HR policies and workplace ethics.

Most McDonalds restaurants are owned as independent franchises but core to the company’s values is an experience of consistency. This means that corporate HQ strongly influences how the outlets operate and so must bear significant responsibility in the overall company culture. Thus, they must burden some of the blame for the behaviour of workers within the franchises.

Furthermore, many McDonalds employees are relatively young; new to the world of work, inexperienced in their rights and nervous of blotting their early careers with a mark for a dismissal or spurious allegation. This makes them particularly susceptible by older, more senior employees who are emboldened by the power they wield and the perceived protection that the McDonald brand gives them.

As HR professionals, our role is pivotal in shaping an organisation's culture. Our efforts should be directed towards creating a culture that respects individuality, promotes fairness, and discourages any form of bullying and harassment. We all have an ethical responsibility to safeguard our workers from damaging behaviour.

The proposed bill could serve as a beacon of hope for victims who have, out of fear of retaliation or further victimisation, hitherto suffered in silence. A clear, legal definition will enable efficient enforcement of justice, and ensure that no such instances are dismissed as mere banter. It will also compel organisations to shoulder the responsibility of ensuring a healthy and respectful work environment.

Organisations, should act now. Transparency and open communication should be the bedrock of an anti-bullying strategy. Employees should feel secure in voicing their concerns without the fear of repercussions. Whistleblower protection measures, a zero-tolerance policy towards bullying, and regular audits of the work environment are some of the methods that businesses and organisations can adopt.

Appropriate training can also play a significant role in mitigating such issues. Employees at all levels should be educated about the impact of bullying, harassment, and inappropriate behaviour, and how they can play a role in curbing it. Our Dignity at Work training course is a great place to start and we can provide two-tiered training that comprises a detailed workshop for supervisors and managers, coupled with lighter, briefing sessions that can be delivered to larger groups of employees and general staff. You can see more information here.

The McDonalds situation, while unfortunate, provides a stark reminder that workplace bullying is an issue that needs urgent attention. It emphasises the need for swift action and preventative measures. With the impending government bill, we are at the cusp of a new era in workplace ethics. It is up to us, as HR professionals, to make a difference, to ensure workplaces are safe, respectful spaces for all.

You can read more on the McDonalds story on the BBC website at https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=mcdonald+bullying&d=news_ps and the first reading of the Bullying and Respect at Work Bill at https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001p2sg/ten-minute-rule-bill-workplace-bullying

Every workplace deserves an environment where employees can thrive without fear. It's not just about policy; it's about people. Get in touch with us on 01452 331331 or e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Our HR and Employment Law helpline is here to help employers with the everyday ins and out of employing people. The types of calls and the queries we receive vary quite considerably. From a fairly innocuous question requiring clarification on calculating holiday pay, to the much more serious relating to behaviour or an incident that has potential to lead to a disciplinary outcome.

Where the latter is concerned, and particularly where the outcome may ultimately lead to a dismissal, we generally have two questions that we ask our clients before we furnish them with any advice. The answers will determine the extent to which the individual in question is protected by employment law, and also the approach we should take to ensure the client isn’t exposed to any unnecessary risk.

Those two questions are:

• What is the employee’s length of service?
• Does the employee have any protected characteristics?

An answer of ‘less than two years’ to the first question means the employee should be potentially much easier to dismiss, if the situation is serious enough to warrant this. Employee rights kick-in at the two-year point and so prior to this, employees have not accrued any rights. Although an employee can not bring a claim for unfair dismissal until they have achieved 2 years’ service, they may bring other claims and there seems to be an increasing tendency to do so. To mitigate this risk, following a disciplinary process is often advisable.

So, consistently poor performance, absence, bad behaviour, conduct or attitude can mean a quick exit for some members of staff; although if an employee has successfully completed their probation, they should be afforded a full and proper process.

Also, if an employee’s contractual notice period takes them over two years of service, then they should be treated as having reached the two years’ service threshold.
If the answer to the second question is yes, then we must proceed with caution. It’s a sad fact that we must go above and beyond to prove that any protected characteristic an employee might have is not the root cause for the disciplinary action or dismissal.

Decisions made against an employee’s best interests, because they have one or more protected characteristics, are automatically discrimination, awards against claims for which are unlimited. The record for highest UK award stands at a staggering £4.5 million, so it’s actually a good idea to ensure that discrimination is eliminated from your organisation.

The grounds for discrimination were originally set out in the Equalities Act 2010. Since the implementation of the act, there have been a few updates, changes and additions to the definitions. Employers should be aware of what the protected characteristics are as they will always be considered by a Tribunal in cases of dismissal.

Here’s a list of the protected characteristics as defined by the Equalities Act with a brief overview of each.

• Age – You can’t make a decision about an employee or potential employee that is influenced by their age. This goes for young as well as old. Using words such as “energetic” or “experienced” in a job advertisement for example, would cross the line at both ends of the age spectrum. Asking someone to retire is a slam-dunk discrimination case.
• Disability – Employers must make reasonable adjustments to the workplace or work conditions in order to accommodate employees with disabilities. There may be limits to what you can do of course but you must be able to prove that you have gone to “reasonable” lengths. This might extend to altering an individual’s working hours as much as the physical environment. Remember that disability covers mental health too.
• Gender reassignment – Staff who propose to, have started or have completed a process to change their gender must have equal treatment and facilities. This may for example, include installing a female toilet in a previously all-male environment, although changing toilets to universal use seems to be the option favoured by most organisations.
• Marital Status – Whether a person is married, single or divorced should not influence any decisions made about their employment status or terms. Civil Partnerships are covered by the same rules.
• Race – This includes race defined by colour, nationality or ethnicity.
• Religion or belief – Similar to race; a person’s religion or belief should have no bearing on how they are treated or decisions made about them. Having no religion, ie Atheism, counts too, and this also extends to “ethical veganism”, whereby how an individual lives their life is strictly influenced by that belief.
• Pregnancy & Maternity – Treating someone differently because they are pregnant or on maternity leave is another big no.
• Sex – Whether an employee is male or female should make no difference to any employment decision. Sex discrimination is often cited in equal pay cases
• Sexual orientation – Relates to whether a person’s sexual attraction is to the same sex, the opposite sex or both sexes.

The Equalities Act also covers discrimination by association, so it would be unlawful to treat someone differently because they cared for a child with a disability or because their partner held a particular religious belief.

There is no hierarchy of protected characteristics, and no one characteristic trumps another. The whole purpose of the Equalities Act is to ensure that everyone is treated equally and fairly and to make employment in the UK a level playing field. Clear and consistent processes that are applied equally across the entire workforce, particularly where dismissal is concerned, is paramount.

So, if you ever have need to pick up the phone to us in relation to an employee, please consider that you’ll probably be asked these two key questions so you might want to have the answers prepared. The number to call us on is 01452 331331 or you can e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

In the week of its 75th anniversary, the NHS has announced the role-out of its Long-Term Workforce Plan. A series of interventions that will ‘train, retain and reform the workforce, and put the NHS on a sustainable footing into the future’.

Whilst the plan is unreservedly welcomed, it is clearly wildly overdue. Our regular readers will know that workforce planning has been something we have been talking about and delivering seminars on for a number of years now.

Effective workforce planning cannot be overlooked by any organisation, and especially not one that can only function with staff who have been highly trained in skills that take several years to reach competency in.

This year’s industrial action demonstrates dissatisfaction with the NHS as an employer and there are numerous reports of clinical staff leaving the service. This has put added pressure on the remaining staff which is further compounded by, a symptom of it’s own success, an increasingly ageing population requiring more care. And let’s not forget the obesity crisis, the increase in poor mental health and the legacy of Covid.

The common view is that the once, world leading NHS, has degraded into an average service by international standards, and has been described as “middling at best.” You’ve really got to ask, ‘what has taken them so long to put a workforce plan into place?’

The desired outcomes of the NHS Long Term Workforce plan are to:

• Train more staff so that there enough doctors, nurses and midwives, GPs, dentists and other health professionals
• Retain more staff through greater job flexibility and career progression and by improving culture, leadership and wellbeing
• Reform working practices to provider greater diversity of skills amongst staff and embrace new digital and technological innovations such as AI

If these headings sound familiar, that’s because they are pretty much the same ones we have been using for some time when discussing and promoting workforce planning; it isn’t rocket science.
Investing in training employees is common sense. Medicine is no different to other industries in terms of how quickly things move and develop. Staff need to be continually trained in modern thinking and methods to remain up to date and therefore competitive.

Moreover, employers need to be influencing what training the staff of the future are receiving. A business isn’t in a position to moan that it can’t find appropriately qualified staff if it hasn’t discussed with the colleges and universities what courses it needs them to run in order to fill future vacancies. The NHS is guilty of plundering the talent pool of other countries because there are too few trainee doctors and nurses.

Staff retention is a subject all of its own, and again, one we have covered many times. Pay and benefits are only part of the story. Retention is grown from good leadership and a positive organisational culture. People like to say that they work for a good employer. Doctors and nurses can’t expect to work from home, but flexible working arrangements can take many forms. Sometimes a little creativity is required.

Readiness to embrace change, especially technological advances, is crucial. We have seen a raft of disruption to a wide range of industries in recent years with the onset of digital technologies. Uber, the worlds biggest taxi company doesn’t own any cars. Airbnb, the leader in holiday accommodation doesn’t own any hotels.

Organisations need to be constantly aware of what the next disruptor might be in their own industry or in their supply and delivery chains as this will influence, if not dominate, their staffing decisions for the future. Money spent on training engineers to perform tasks that will be done by robots next year might be better spent on training programmers.

The success of the NHS and its potential to make it to 100 years is going to be very reliant on the success and implementation of the workforce plan. Whilst it may be long overdue, it does at least now set an example to all organisations of the importance of effective workforce planning.

We’re currently scheduling a number of Workforce Planning seminars for Gloucestershire, Worcestershire and Bristol so please stay alert for date and venue announcements. In the meantime, if you would like a discussion or some support regarding your own workforce plan, we’re available on 01452 331331 or at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Statistics released last week from the Ministry of Justice show that 23,000 claims were received by the Employment Tribunal Service between January and March this year (2023). This is an increase over claims for the same period last year of 5% for single claims and 39% for multiple claims; where a claim is bought by two or more claimants against the same employer or grouped together owing to similarities.

The type of claim with the highest number in this period was for unauthorised deduction of wages, for which there were 7,400 claims. Some of these may have arisen on account of the high number of strikes we saw by workers during the first quarter of the year, although deducting pay for strike action is allowed. Such a high figure does suggest that there may be other reasons that pay has been withheld where the employee has felt wrongfully so.

Should an employer be challenged by an employee regarding deductions then effort should be made to resolve the matter through discussion and agreement. If this doesn’t conclude the matter then the employee may escalate the matter by speaking to their trade union representative if they have one, by contacting ACAS for support, and ultimately by taking their employer to Employment Tribunal.

Pay is the clearly the main reason that people come to work and so it is understandable that situations and emotions can become heated quite quickly if someone feels they have not been paid accordingly or have had earnings withheld unfairly. Even when a deduction is justified, there are certain rules that an employer must adhere to.

Employers may not make deductions unless:

• It’s required or allowed by law. Income Tax, National Insurance and student loan repayments are obvious examples
• The employee has not worked due to taking part in a strike or industrial action
• The employment contract permits it or it is agreed in writing. This may be for pension contributions, Trade Union subscriptions or salary sacrifice scheme
• An earlier overpayment of wages or expenses is being reclaimed
• Fulfilment of a court order or tribunal decision

Even when deductions are permissible, some are restricted to 10% of the employee’s gross in any pay period and there are some rules that come into effect should the deduction reduce the employee’s pay below the National Minimum Wage.

Some of the more common situations that we are asked to advise clients on where a deduction of pay may occur include:

Unauthorised absence: If an employee doesn’t turn into work then you wouldn’t expect to pay them. Depending on the situation, the absence could be commuted to holiday, but unauthorised may still lead to disciplinary action, especially if it is persistent.

Authorised Unpaid Leave: There is a raft of situations where this may be an appropriate solution to an employee needing to be absent from work. We would expect this to be covered by a formal, written agreement.

Holiday pay: This usually occurs when an employee leaves. Accrued holiday that has not been taken should be paid, but any that has been taken but not accrued can be deducted from the employee’s final pay.

Holiday pay for overtime/bonuses/commission: Strictly speaking, regular additional payments should be factored into an employee’s pay whilst they are taking holiday leave. They may have a justified claim if it isn’t.

Training costs: It is permissible to deduct costs for some training if it is stated in the contract of employment or if there is a separate training cost agreement. Cost for training that is for compliance or a statutory requirement for the employee to do their job, such as health and safety training cannot be deducted. Skills training can be deducted but even then, it is usually on a reducing scale over time and we always advise a specific agreement to cover this.

Time off for medical appointments: Strictly speaking this would usually be authorised absence or the employee could take it as holiday. If it was only for a short period such as a dental check-up then the employee might be able to fit this into a lunch break. For the sake of good employee relations, we recommend that the employer allows minor medical appointments without making deductions. Staff are legally allowed time off for medical emergencies involving a dependant. You may want to assess each case individually. Absence for Maternity and pregnancy related appointments should never be deducted.

Time off for the school play/sports day: In the interest of employee relations, we would again recommend not making deductions for short term absence of just a few hours, especially when it involves workers children.
Missing cash or stock: Certain rules apply solely to retail. If responsibility for cash in a till or for retail stock is the contractual responsibility of an employee, then deductions may be lawful if they go missing. The 10% rule might apply here.

Damages to stock/equipment/vehicles: For premises and equipment, we would expect most employers to have adequate insurance in place to cover damages caused by employees. It would be very irregular to be re-imbursed by your insurance company and then make an additional claim against the employee. For vehicle damage, insurance excess may be charged to an employee and therefore deducted form there pay but this should be a contractual clause.

As usual, you should employ consistency in your decisions when it comes to making deductions from staff pay. Some cases will be subjective and open to debate, in which case your decision making processes must be consistent.

If you require clarification or re-assurance that any deduction you are making are fair, legal and accurately calculated, call us on 01452 331331 or e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.