Workplace misery: new report exposes unfair treatment

Thousands unfairly treated at work

FairEnough

Thousands of Scots face unfair working practices which leave them in desperate and miserable situations, according to new evidence from Citizens Advice Scotland (CAS).

Last year the Scottish CAB service saw 46,540 instances of unfair treatment at work – an increase of 5.5% on the previous year – and already this year the figures look set to be even higher.

Examples include unfair dismissal, non-payment of wages, cancellation of holidays, bullying, racism and denial of sick pay.

Many workers have told CAS they would like to take their case to tribunals but can’t afford to do so.

CAS new report ‘Fair Enough?’ sets out these problems in detail and suggests solutions to make Scotland’s workplaces fairer. It is being sent to Ministers, MPs and MSPs.

Publishing the report, CAS spokesman Rob Gowans said: “In Scotland we like to see ourselves as a generally fair, socially just country. Sadly, the evidence seen by CAB advisers every day tells a different story. We know that many Scots who are unemployed face severe hardship. But many who do have jobs are living on low incomes and also facing extremely unfair conditions at work.

“The evidence we present today is a snapshot of the kind of employment cases we see. Of course it’s important to say that most employers are fair and treat their staff well. But sadly it’s clear that there are many rogue employers in Scotland, and also that the system is in many ways stacked against workers who want to challenge unfairness at work.

“Some of the unfair employment practices we see put workers in difficult, complex and miserable situations. In exposing these today we want to raise awareness of these problems, but also to argue the case for change. All of the problems we identify in this report can be fixed, and we suggest ways of doing that.

“Because Scotland’s workers deserve better. And it is also in the interests of government and society as a whole that fair employment is promoted. Workers in low quality, stressful jobs have poorer general health, and poor daily quality of life than other groups – even those who are unemployed. It is also important to ensure that unscrupulous employers who wilfully undermine their employees’ basic rights do not gain an unfair advantage over fair employers.”

The sort of cases outlined in the report include:

  • People being dismissed in unfair circumstances, including for being off sick, attempting to take holiday, or informed of their dismissal by text message.
  • Employees who were not paid at all by their employers, in one case for six months’ full-time work.
  • Employers who failed to pay their employees’ income tax and national insurance leaving them to pick up the bill; and instances of clients paid considerably below the National Minimum Wage.
  • People who were unfairly denied sick pay when seriously ill
  • Employers refusing to allow employees to take paid holiday
  • Women who were dismissed when they became pregnant
  • Instances of racist and sexist bullying at work
  • Migrant workers who were exploited and made to work excessive hours
  • People who could not afford the fees to pursue an Employment Tribunal claim
  • Cases where a client won their case at an Employment Tribunal, and were awarded several thousand pounds, but their ex-employers managed to avoid paying them any of the money they were due
  • Many of the examples of poorest practice relate to people on zero hours contracts.

The full report: 

Fair Enough Protecting Scotland’s workers from unfair treatment Feb 2015

More low wage employers named and shamed

GMB trade union calls for guilty directors to be barred

coins

A further 37 employers who failed to pay their workers the National Minimum Wage – including one in Edinburgh – have been named today by Business Minister Jo Swinson.

Between them they owe workers a total of over £177,000 in arrears and have been charged financial penalties totalling over £51,000.

The government has already named 55 employers since the new naming regime came into force in October 2013. They had total arrears of over £139,000 and total penalties of over £60,000. One of the previous offenders was private school Cargilfield in Cramond, who were fined last June for underpaying a member of staff by over £3700.

HM Revenue and Customs’ (HMRC) National Minimum Wage enforcement budget will be increased by a further £3 million in financial year 2015 to 2016 – taking the total to £12.2 million. The extra money will go towards increasing the number of HMRC compliance officers to identify businesses that exploit their workers by paying them below the National Minimum Wage.

Business Minister Jo Swinson said: “Paying less than the minimum wage is illegal, immoral and completely unacceptable. If employers break this law they need to know that we will take tough action by naming, shaming and fining them as well as helping workers recover the hundreds of thousands of pounds in pay owed to them.

“We are also looking at what more we can do to make sure workers are paid fairly in the first place. As well as being publicly named and shamed, employers that fail to pay their workers the National Minimum Wage face penalties of up to £20,000. We are legislating through the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill so that this penalty can be applied to each underpaid worker rather than per employer.”

Employers who are unsure of National Minimum Wage rules can also get free advice via the Pay and Work Rights Helpline on 0800 917 2368.

The 37 employers are:

  • Kings Group LLP, Hertfordshire, neglected to pay £53,808.91 to 53 workers
  • Kings Group Lettings LLP, Hertfordshire, neglected to pay £26,893.43 to 49 workers
  • Chi Yip Group Ltd, Middleton, neglected to pay £15,566.78 to 13 workers
  • Kingsclere Nurseries Ltd trading as Abacus Day Nursery, Newbury, neglected to pay £12,904.19 to 8 workers.
  • Ms Thap Thi Ly trading as Sweet N Sour, Fleetwood, neglected to pay £11,039.14 to 2 workers
  • Michael Kearney trading as Electrical Estimates, Ceredigion, neglected to pay £5,557.91 to 4 workers
  • ABC Early Learning and Childcare Centre UK Ltd, Wolverhampton, neglected to pay £5,329.25 to 68 workers
  • C J Hartley Ltd trading as Headwork, Sheffield, neglected to pay £4,762.64 to 4 workers
  • Mrs Kelly Jayne Lockley trading as Diva Hair Design, Walsall, neglected to pay £4,103.65 to a worker
  • Browncow Tanning Ltd trading as Fake Bake Hair & Beauty Boutique, Glasgow, neglected to pay £3,406.66 to 2 workers
  • J Wood Joiners & Builders Ltd, Edinburgh, neglected to pay £3,373.19 to 4 workers
  • Louise Ross Trading as Luxe Salon, Leeds, neglected to pay £3,368.13 to a worker
  • H&M Hennes & Mauritz UK Ltd, London, neglected to pay £2,604.87 to 540 workers
  • Building Projects Ltd, Dundee, neglected to pay £2,345.85 to 3 workers
  • David A Farrer Ltd, Morecambe, neglected to pay £2,261.00 to a worker
  • Julian’s Hair Salon Ltd, Newbury, neglected to pay £2,131.35 to a worker
  • Motorists Discount Store Ltd trading as TMS Autoparts, Manchester, neglected to pay £2,025.19 to a worker
  • Ms Dawn Platts trading as Level 2 Hair Studio, Barnsley, neglected to pay £1,186.89 to a worker
  • Myers and Family Ltd, Wakefield, neglected to pay £1.598.82 to a worker
  • Welcome Break Holdings Ltd, Newport Pagnell, neglected to pay £1,318.70 to 19 workers
  • Callum Austin Ltd trading as Jason Austin Hairdressers, Kettering, neglected to pay £1,899.66 to 2 workers
  • Mrs Karen Riley Trading as Crave, Preston, neglected to pay £1,179.09 to 7 workers
  • RPM Performance Rally World Ltd, Maldon, neglected to pay £998.71 to a worker
  • Ego Hair & Beauty (Anglia) Ltd, Colchester, neglected to pay £985.55 to a worker
  • Mr Jinit Shah trading as Crystal Financial Solutions, Middlesex, neglected to pay £941.65 to a worker
  • Counted4 Community Interest Company, Sunderland, neglected to pay £930.73 to a worker
  • HAE Automotive Services Ltd, Harrogate (ceased trading), neglected to pay £798.16 to a worker
  • Vision on Digital Ltd, Ossett, neglected to pay £683.86 to a worker
  • Ultimate Care UK Ltd, Ipswich, neglected to pay £613.79 to 7 workers
  • Century Motors (Sheffield) Ltd, Sheffield, neglected to pay £571.72 to a worker
  • Mr D Eastwell & Mr G Brinkler trading as The Salon, Letchworth Garden City, neglected to pay £409.85 to a worker
  • Rumble (Bedworth) Ltd, Nuneaton, neglected to pay £404.41 to a worker
  • Shannons Ltd, Worthing neglected to pay £313.76 to a worker
  • Holmes Cleaning Company, Worksop neglected to pay £240.48 to a worker
  • Learnplay Foundation Ltd, West Bromwich, neglected to pay £224.73 to a worker
  • Adrien Mackenzie trading as Maverick Models, Manchester, neglected to pay £205.52 to a worker
  • QW Security Ltd, Hartlepool, neglected to pay £126.20 to a worker

The 37 cases named today were thoroughly investigated by HM Revenue and Customs after workers made complaints to the free and confidential Pay and Work Rights Helpline.

The scheme was revised in October 2013 to make it simpler to name and shame employers that do not comply with minimum wage rules, but the GMB trade union  says the enforcement rules should also be changed so that trade unions can make complaints to HMRC on behalf of members.

Commenting on the latest announcement Martin Smith, GMB National Organizer, said: “Far too few wage-dodging employers not paying the national minimum wage have been bought to justice. Government needs to make a real commitment to making work pay by more aggressively seeking out offenders to prosecute them. The enforcement rules should also be changed so that trade unions can make complaints to HMRC on behalf of members.

“As part of the public disgracing for the firms named GMB is calling for the directors of these companies to be placed on a “wage offenders register” at Companies House and be deemed an unfit person to hold any further directorships.

“There needs to be a recognition that a national minimum wage of £6.50 is near impossible to live on as it is without relying on state benefits. There are bucket loads of evidence that an uplift of at least 50p per hour would help the low paid and start to stimulate the economy and that all the big firms including the retailers can afford it.

“There is no justification for the national minimum wage not keeping up with inflation. The Low Pay Commission should recommend a rate of at least £7 per hour from October 2014 to make up the ground lost since 2006.

“It is time for the Low Pay Commission to do what it says on the tin – fight for the low paid.”

Expecting? Congratulations – new leave rights for parents

285,000 working couples eligible for shared parental leave

newborn2Couples finding out now that they are expecting a child will be among the first parents eligible to take advantage of new shared parental leave rights.

The new rules, which apply to couples whose babies are due from next April, will allow parents to choose whether they want to share the mother’s maternity leave. Shared parental leave can be taken at the same time so a couple would be able to be at home together for up to half a year following the birth of their child.

There are expected to be around 285,000 working couples that will be eligible to share the leave from April 2015. The changes in how maternity leave can be used will kick start a culture change in workplaces where fathers feel more confident to talk to their employers about taking time off for childcare.

Employment Relations Minister Jo Swinson said: “Any couples receiving the happy news that they are due to have a baby from 5 April onwards can now start planning ahead safe in the knowledge that they have the option to choose to share the care of their child and time off work in the way that suits them best.

“Introducing shared parental leave is a significant step towards changing workplace culture, making it just as normal for fathers to take on childcare responsibilities as mothers.

“From April next year mums and adopters will have real choice about when they return to work, dads will have more time to bond with their children and employers will benefit from lower staff turnover and having a workforce that is more flexible and motivated.”

Acas Chair Brendan Barber said: “Many employers recognise that they can retain talented staff by offering a flexible approach to work and a healthy work life balance can help business success and growth.

“Shared parental leave will enable working parents to share maternity or adoption leave to allow both parents greater involvement with their child’s first year whilst employers have the potential to remain productive by agreeing new arrangements that works for their organisations.

“As workplace experts, we have published a new free online guide on shared parental leave to help employers understand how the new changes will affect them. We are also working on detailed guidance to help employees and employers manage SPL requests fairly.”

The government is introducing shared parental leave and pay for employed parents which will make the current system for maternity and paternity leave much more flexible. Families currently have very limited choices about how they can share leave and pay and often struggle to balance competing demands at work and at home.

Under the new system a pregnant woman will continue to have access to 52 weeks of maternity leave and 39 weeks of pay as she does currently. From April 5 2015, for the first time ever, working families will have the opportunity to share the leave much more equally and flexibly.

Eligible couples can take shared parental leave when the mother opts to end her maternity leave and pay (or maternity allowance) early. The remainder of her statutory leave and pay may be shared between the mother and her partner as shared parental leave and pay.

family

Case study:

Hannah is a Senior Project Manager in the e-learning industry and her husband Chris works for the Civil Service. When their son Euan was born they decided to split their leave entitlement. Hannah returned to work on a 4.5 day week when Euan was 8 months old at which point Chris took 7 weeks of additional maternity support leave to look after Euan. Both Hannah and Chris feel that sharing leave has been a very positive experience for themselves and their son.

Hannah said that knowing Euan was at home with Chris was very reassuring when she returned to work: “Chris and I felt that this would be one of the few opportunities we would get to spend an extended period of time with Euan before he started school. Going back to work it was nice for me to know that Euan was with Chris rather than going straight into childcare and when I returned to work we were able to meet up for lunches as a family which was great. Sharing leave is something we’ll definitely do again.”

Chris said that having father and baby time together during the period of leave he took was very special: “During the 7 weeks I had with Euan we were able to take part in a range of activities like swimming, music and baby sensory sessions. It was brilliant to have that father and baby time together. It’s something very special and I felt that both Euan and I gained a lot from it. I’d really recommend it to any other dads-to-be.”

Unfairly sacked? That’ll be £160, please!

despairWestminster Government introduces fees for employment tribunals

Bringing a claim or an appeal to the employment tribunal is currently free of charge with the full cost being met by the taxpayer, but the government has now introduced fees, claiming that by doing this people using employment tribunals will meet ‘a significant proportion’ of the £84m cost of running the system. Their aim, they say, is to reduce the taxpayer subsidy of these tribunals by transferring some of the cost to those who use the service, while protecting access to justice for all.

The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) – a taxpayer-funded service to help workers and businesses settle disputes without the need to go to a tribunal – will remain free, but if agreement cannot be reached at that stage and the claim is taken further significant costs will now be incurred.

Workers will have to pay £160 or £250 to lodge a claim and a charge of either £230 or £950 if their case goes ahead.

Minister Jonathan Djanogly said: “It’s not fair on the taxpayer to foot the entire £84m bill for people to escalate workplace disputes to a tribunal. We want people, where they can, to pay a fair contribution for the system they are using, which will encourage them to look for alternatives.

“It is in everyone’s interest to avoid drawn out disputes which emotionally damage workers and financially damage businesses. That’s why we are encouraging quicker, simpler and cheaper alternatives like mediation.”

Critics of the charges argue that the new charges will dissuade many employees from making legitimate claims about workplace discrimination and there is concern that, once again, it is the poorest and most vulnerable that will suffer.

TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: “It is vital that working people have fair access to justice, but introducing fees for tribunals will deter many – particularly those on low wages – from taking valid claims to court. Many of the UK’s most vulnerable workers will simply be priced out of justice.

“The government’s remission scheme to protect low-paid employees is woefully inadequate, and workers will be more likely to be mistreated at work as rogue bosses will be able to flout the law without fear of sanction.”

Responding to a consultation on the controversial proposals, Citizens Advice Scotland’s Kevin Dryburgh said: “Employment tribunals are an essential service for all workers and employers in the UK. It is not just successful claimants who benefit – all employers and workers benefit from a service that protects workers, discourages rogue and exploitative employers, and ensures a level playing field for good employers.

“Far from being a costly burden on employers and tax payers, employment tribunals play a key role for all those in work. Placing barriers to accessing Employment Tribunals will affect the effectiveness of the service in providing this role.”

Trade union UNISON is fighting the fees and has been given permission to seek a judicial review. The hearing will take place in October.bigben