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.

It may have been brought to your attention that England are in the final of the European Cup on Sunday night following a gripping semi-final win over the Netherlands on Wednesday evening. Win or lose, we think it’s a good idea that employers are pro-active in managing the potential consequences of England reaching their first ever major tournament final on foreign soil.

By way of comparison, when England won their first round match against Tunisia in the 2018 World Cup, the media reported that staff absences rose by 36% the following day. On Sunday, fans will no doubt be taking their seats early in pubs and clubs, and even at home with friends, in order to enjoy the build up to the 8.00pm kick off, and potentially indulge in a drink or two.

We’ll then have a 90 minutes game potentially followed by 30 minutes of extra time and possibly a penalty shoot-out. If England win, fans will want to remain immersed in the elation for as long as possible. Or to put it another way… it could get messy.

UK employers are therefore presented with a unique challenge for Monday morning, as we should expect employee attendance and productivity to be impacted. Here are some key considerations and options for managing this situation effectively. And whatever you decide, put a communication out as early as possible so that everyone is appraised of the position you are or will be taking.

Failure to attend work: 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.

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.

Re-communicating your absence policy in advance can set expectations for employees. Inform them of the procedures for taking leave or reporting absences due to the previous night's celebrations. Encourage employees to plan ahead and request leave if they anticipate needing it.

You may already be processing a high number of holiday requests. If this compromises your required workforce number you may have to 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.

Flexible working: Another approach could be to offer flexible working hours on Monday. Allowing employees to start later in the day can help accommodate those who might have stayed up late and need additional rest to recover. Being flexible can prevent the risks associated with tiredness and hangovers.

If feasible, allowing employees to work from home can mitigate the risks associated with commuting while under the influence of alcohol. This option also accommodates those who may not be in the best physical state to commute but can still be productive from home.

Plan for low productivity: Depending on how your workforce is comprised and what industry you are in, you may have to accept that productivity might dip on Monday, so plan accordingly. Non-critical tasks can be scheduled for later in the week, and team leaders can be briefed to manage workloads flexibly. This approach ensures that essential operations continue smoothly without putting undue pressure on employees.

You may even decide to give everyone the day off. We suggest however that if you take this very generous option you do so whether England win or lose. Losing a penalty shoot-out has lots of effects on individuals but it doesn’t make someone who has been drinking all evening immediately sober.

Duty of care: Employees who drive as part of their job responsibilities are of particular concern. Driving under the influence of alcohol is obviously illegal, and the morning after can pose significant safety risks. Employers must ensure that these workers are fit to drive. Failing to do so could result in accidents, serious harm to employees and others and legal issues up to and including corporate manslaughter.

Even for employees who do not drive for work but must commute, there are clearly risks associated with driving under the influence. Encouraging responsible behaviour is essential to prevent potential road incidents.
Perhaps a reminder about the dangers of drink driving and the importance of health and safety to reinforce responsible behaviour is in order. Highlight the legal implications and potential consequences of driving under the influence to ensure employees are aware of their responsibilities. Encourage moderation so that employees can enjoy the game without overindulging.

Arranging transportation alternatives for employees who might be at risk of driving under the influence could be an option. This could include organizing carpooling options, offering taxi reimbursements, or providing information about public transportation schedules. But if staff aren’t fit enough to drive, do you really want them in the workplace, especially if their intoxication could affect their ability to work safely, in a factory or on a building site perhaps.

A reminder of your company drugs and alcohol policy before the weekend might be a good idea.

The European Cup final is a momentous occasion, and it's natural for employees to want to enjoy the atmosphere of England making it to the final. By taking proactive measures, UK employers can manage the potential impact on attendance and productivity. Flexible working arrangements, clear communication, and promoting responsible behaviour are key strategies to ensure that Monday morning runs as smoothly as possible.

Make a decision on the stance you plan to take and communicate it to your entire workforce today or tomorrow so that no-one can say they weren’t forewarned or hadn’t thought about the consequences. By showing understanding and adaptability, employers can maintain a positive work environment while upholding safety and productivity standards.

And remember there are plenty of people who won’t be interested in the football. Make sure they are not disadvantaged in favour of those who are interested, especially as you might be relying on them to keep your business afloat on Monday.

We’re available as usual for help and support on 01452 331331 or by emailing This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. However we hope you’ll act on the recommendations outlined in this post and we won’t be inundated with phone calls on Monday for dealing with a rash of absence and intoxication at work issues. Good luck England.

Recruiting staff is expensive. Whether you advertise vacancies and manage the full process yourself, or you use the services of a recruitment agent or consultant to find and shortlist prospective candidates, there’s a whole raft of costs. Advertising, commission plus your own manager and administrator time.

So we find it frustrating that after the expense of recruiting, businesses invest so little time and effort in implementing robust and effective induction programmes or properly managing the probation period. The first days and weeks for a new recruit are arguably the most crucial. However, high attrition and staff turnover, especially in the early stages of employment, can become a perpetual financial drain for businesses; and one that can be so easily avoided.

Now that labour have won the election, we know from their previously published 'Work Plan' that they intend to abolish the rule that means workers do not accrue rights for the first two years. This has been something we have relied upon when the need has arisen to dismiss staff. Potentially now, the probation period will be the only option to dismiss underperformers so employers will need to make sure they are managing these with purpose. If that alone isn't reason to ensure your inductions and probations are in good order, here are a few more.

Integration into Organisational Culture: A properly-crafted induction programme is essential for integrating new employees into the company's culture. In a competitive job market, businesses must ensure that new recruits align with their values and goals. Comprehensive induction processes provide an overview of the company's mission, vision, and values, fostering a sense of belonging and purpose from day one. This alignment is crucial for retaining employees and reducing turnover.

Reducing Employee Turnover: High employee turnover is a significant financial burden, not only due to recruitment and training costs but also because vacancies necessitate temporary coverage by existing staff, diverting them from their primary responsibilities. A thorough induction programme helps new employees understand their roles, reduces initial uncertainty, and sets clear expectations. By making the transition smooth and welcoming, businesses can significantly reduce early resignations and dismissals, thus saving on associated costs.

Enhanced Productivity: A structured induction process accelerates the time it takes for a new employee to become productive. Instead of spending weeks or months figuring out their roles, accessing resources, or understanding company systems, a guided introduction allows them to hit the ground running. In an environment with high vacancy rates, businesses cannot afford prolonged periods of sub-optimal productivity. Better-trained managers can ensure that inductions are efficient and comprehensive, boosting the productivity of new recruits from the outset.

Improved Employee Morale and Engagement: Entering a new organisation, especially one with high vacancy rates, can be overwhelming for new employees. A well-thought-out induction programme acts as a crucial support mechanism. By connecting new recruits with peers, mentors, or ‘buddies’, businesses can help them feel valued and engaged. Higher engagement often leads to improved morale, better performance, and increased loyalty. Managers trained in effective onboarding techniques can facilitate these connections and foster a positive work environment.

We should also comment on the negative impact on staff morale that high turnover has. If there is a revolving door of new recruits, existing employees may feel insecure in their own positions and choose to leave an organisation that has the reputation of being a bad employer. We have also heard of those responsible for the training of new recruits to become ‘fatigued’ by the fact that they seem to be constantly training new staff who never stay; diminishing their own morale and self-esteem.

Competitive Advantage in Talent Acquisition: In today's social media-driven world, word spreads quickly about company practices. Organisations known for excellent onboarding and induction processes have a competitive advantage in attracting talent. Prospective employees are more likely to be drawn to companies where they believe they will receive proper training and support during the initial phases of their employment. Your managers play a critical role in enhancing the company’s reputation as an employer of choice through ensuring that new recruits have a positive start; yet another reason to train them well.

Compliance and Risk Management: When positions have been vacant for a long time, the urgency to fill them can sometimes overshadow the importance of compliance training. Effective induction programmes ensure that new recruits are aware of the company's policies, legal obligations, and safety protocols from the outset. This is particularly important for compliance with health and safety in certain roles and for regulations such as GDPR. A thorough induction not only protects the company from potential legal issues but also ensures a safer and more compliant working environment.

In a competitive jobs market, businesses that invest in training will reap benefits in productivity, loyalty, and reputation. Not only should inductions and well-managed probation periods be standard, but managers must be trained to implement them effectively. By focusing on these areas, businesses can ensure a smoother transition for new employees, ultimately leading to a more engaged, sustained and productive workforce.

HR Champions can support the design of an effective induction programme. For assistance, call us on 01452 331331 or email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Now that we have had a taste of summer over the last week, and the traditional holiday season is upon us, so we thought we would go over the basic rules around holiday and annual leave. It’s been a while since we touched on this subject in the blog but staff holiday is one of the most consistent subjects we give advice about on the helpline, so perhaps you can bookmark this page for future reference.

There is a raft of legislation that governs how you must deal with staff holidays, but staff morale and productivity are equally compelling reasons to get policies and procedures correct and to do the right thing. Keeping on top of your staff’s holiday bookings, especially as we enter the more popular school holiday period, will help to avoid clashes or overlap of holidays, and also you to monitor whether staff absences leave any skills shortages in the business.

Statutory holiday, the legal minimum that employees, including part-time and most agency and free-lance workers, are entitled to, is 5.6 weeks per year. That equates to 20 days annual leave plus eight days for public holidays. We’ve had extra public holidays in the last couple of years for the Queen’s funeral and the King’s Coronation, but these are discretionary.

You can choose how you describe holiday entitlement in your staff handbook or employment contracts as either 20 days plus 8 public holidays, OR as 28 days including public holidays. We recommend the latter as it generally makes it easier to calculate holidays, especially for part-time workers, but also because in many industries such as hospitality, retail, leisure and care, employees are required to work on public holidays. By rolling annual leave entitlement up into a single figure, workers in these industries won’t miss out on any holiday.

Part time workers get a pro-rata amount of holiday measured against a standard full-time employee. For example, an employee who only works three days per week would get three fifths of the statutory amount; so 16.8 days, which we would round up to 17. You cannot round down. Note that a part time worker who worked, say, 10.00am to 2.00pm five days a week would still get the full 28 days because the time they would be absent would only be counted against their part time hours.

An anomaly of employees who work compressed hours, eg, the hours of a five day week worked in just four days, is that their annual leave seems to be reduced. In reality, their holiday is compressed also. As in the above example, someone who worked a standard 37.5 hours but over four days, taking Fridays off, would only get 22.4 days statutory leave, but these would only need to be taken against Mondays to Thursdays because the Fridays wouldn’t count.

You holiday year, the annual cycle upon which you calculate holiday, can begin at any time but it can be complicated to change. Some companies choose a standard calendar year whilst others align it with their financial year. This can also cause complications if this is around March/April owing to the variable dates that Easter falls meaning, strictly speaking, a company could have two or no Easters in the same holiday year and therefore two extra or two less public holidays in Good Friday and Easter Monday.

Employers are permitted to dictate to employees when they must take their holiday provided they give adequate notice. This must be at least twice the period of leave. So, if an employer wanted an employee to take a particular week as holiday, they would need to give them at least two weeks notice.

The period between Christmas and New Year is a good example of when many companies might insist that employees reserve some of their holiday allocation. If it happens every year, we would expect to see it stated in the company staff handbook. Some factories still operate shutdown periods two or three times a year, effectively dictating exactly when staff must take their holiday; although high absence rates at other times of the year can prove to be an issue under such conditions.

Employees should always confirm their holiday time with work before booking holidays, flights etc. as employers are not obliged to give employees specific dates if they have good reason not to; resources for a new contract are required for example. We would say though that employers should have clear and fair rules around holiday bookings amongst their teams. Taking terms to have preference when booking holiday will probably see as more diplomatic than a simple first-come first served basis. This is especially true if a high proportion of your workforce have school age children and are restricted or confined by term times.

Annual leave entitlement can be enhanced but not reduced below the statutory amount. We usually see extra leave granted as a reward for long service so an extra day or day might be given after working for a company for five years.

Finally, it is the employer’s responsibility to ensure that all employees take their annual leave, dictating when it must be taken inf necessary. It is not permitted to carry statutory leave into the following year. This was permitted during Covid, predominantly designed to benefit NHS staff, but it has since been rescinded.

Specific holiday entitlement is a contractual term and so should be included in everyone’s contract of employment. We would normally expect to see the rules for requesting and taking holiday in the staff handbook. When an employee leaves, they should be paid for any holiday they have accrued but not taken, and the employer is within their rights to withhold from final pay, any time the employee has taken off but not accrued in that holiday year.

This covers the essential rules of annual leave but there will always be a nuanced question about specific individuals so we’re here to help on 01452 331331 or by email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.