Bright Contracts is category finalist in Meath Business and Tourism Awards
We attended the awards ceremony last night in the Pillo Hotel in Ashbourne. It was a great night of mingling with the best of businesses and it’s great to see how Irish businesses are thriving across all sorts of industries. We were delighted to be nominated for the ‘Best New Business’ award.
The judging panel had great things to say about Bright HR.
Even though we didn’t leave the stage in victory, we came away with a nicely framed memento and it’s already been taken off Paul’s hands and is hanging on the office wall!
Hopefully we will take the top prize in the future as we continue to spread the word about Bright Contracts across Ireland and beyond!
Bright Contracts – Employment contracts and handbooks
BrightPay – Payroll Software
Grievance Procedures must contain right to refer a grievance to a third party industrial relations institution. – Labour Court
A contention by a company that there is no requirement for the company's grievance procedure to contain a provision requiring a referral to an external independent third party was rejected by the Labour Court in a recent recommendation, LCR20406.
Having considered the submission of both parties, the Court recommended that the company’s grievance procedure should be amended to include the right to refer a grievance to a third party industrial relations institution. This is consistent with the procedure set out in the Bright Contracts Handbook.
The matter was referred by their union to the Labour Court on behalf of workers who had many years of employment with the company.
They claimed that the Company had unilaterally withdrawn their right to avail of the State's industrial relations machinery and demanded the reversal of what they described as a unilateral change to their terms and conditions of employment.
At the Labour Court hearing the company had rejected the Union's claim that its grievance procedure was incomplete. They argued that the company's grievance procedure was an internal process that complied with all normal business standards and that there is no requirement for the Company's grievance procedure to contain a provision requiring a referral to an external independent third party.
The Labour Court, in outlining its recommendation, stated the following:
“Having considered the submission of both parties the Court recommends that the Grievance Procedure should be amended to include the right to refer a grievance to a third party industrial relations institution. The Court so recommends.”
Bright Contracts – Employment contracts and handbooks
BrightPay – Payroll Software
Read more at www.labourcourt.ie >
Employment Appeals Tribunal rules in relation to company handbook and contract of employment
The Employment Appeals Tribunal recently upheld a previous recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in favour of the employer in a case where the former employee claimed that the company handbook and employment contract were invalid by virtue of the employer's correct title not being present on the handbook and contract.
The documents did not refer to the limited company status of the employer but did contain the employer's trade name and was signed by the employee.
The EAT found that the employer had fulfilled their obligations and found in their favour.
Bright Contracts – Employment contracts and handbooks
BrightPay – Payroll Software
Read more at www.eatribunal.ie >
Work on the JLC reviews and the Codes of Practice is underway – Minister Bruton
Speaking at an Employment Law Association of Ireland Conference titled: “Current Fundamental Issues in Employment Law” on 28 September 2012, the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Richard Bruton confirmed that work on the review of JLC’s and key Codes of Practice is underway.
During the course of an address that dealt with a wide range of issues, Minister Bruton addressed the fact that the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2012 was enacted on 24 July 2012 and commenced on 1 August 2012. He highlighted that
- the Act provides for a radical overhaul of the system in order to make it fairer and more responsive to changing economic circumstances and labour market conditions.
- it reinstates a robust system of protection for low paid and vulnerable workers in these sectors in the aftermath of the 2011 High Court ruling in the John Grace Fried Chicken case.
- it provides for more wide-ranging measures required to strengthen the legal framework for EROs and REAs in light of legislative deficiencies identified in the High Court judgment.
- it provides that reviews of the JLCs will be carried out by the Labour Court, as soon as practicable after its commencement. The outcome of these reviews will inform the Labour Court as to whether any JLC should be maintained in its current form, amalgamated with another JLC or its establishment order amended.
Minister Bruton also indicated that he has has asked the Labour Court to begin the abolition of three JLCs that had been identified as no longer fulfilling a function in the Duffy-Walsh Report.
He has also asked the Labour Relations Commission to begin work on two Codes of Practice.
- The first on Sunday Working, will provide guidance to employers, employees and their representatives in sectors covered by EROs, on arrangements that may be put in place to comply with the options specified in the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.
- The second will address the standardisation of benefits in the nature of pay – including overtime and how and when it becomes payable – across sectors covered by JLCs.
The Minister confirmed his understanding that preparatory work on the JLC reviews and the Codes of Practice is underway.
Bright Contracts – Employment contracts and handbooks
BrightPay – Payroll Software
Absence of employment contract and staff handbook cited in recent determination
Determination of Employment Appeals Tribunal: -
"Apart from it being a legal requirement the issuing of terms and conditions of employment to employees is of mutual benefit to all concerned. It gives a reference point in the employer/employee relationship. An absence of that document together with no contract of employment is a recipe for misunderstandings and indeed disputes. In addition no staff handbook containing a disciplinary and grievance procedure was in evidence in this case. Again this is a major flaw in the conduct of the respondent when dealing with staff.
When an employer instructs an employee to leave the workplace for no good reason it is not unreasonable for the employee to consider him/herself dismissed. When that instruction is done in an abusive aggressive manner then it is very reasonable for the listener to conclude she/he has lost their job. In these circumstances the Tribunal finds that the claimant was dismissed and that this dismissal was unfair. Accordingly, the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 succeeds and the claimant is awarded €12,290.98 as compensation under those Acts.
The appeal under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts is allowed and the appellant is awarded €709.02 as compensation under those Acts."
Bright Contracts – Employment contracts and handbooks
BrightPay – Payroll Software
Read more at www.eatribunal.ie >
Failure to provide written terms and conditions of employment - award upheld at EAT
This was another appeal held this summer on a Rights Commissioner recommendation where the employee was awarded €900 as he had not been provided with written terms and conditions of employment. The employer in this case appealed the recommendation on the basis that the award would place an unreasonable financial strain on the employer as he had already reduced his employee numbers and was operating at a loss. He also put forward that the employee had suffered no loss or detriment as the written terms and conditions of employment given to him post termination of employment were the same as the unwritten terms and conditions in place during his employment.
The employee held that not having written terms and conditions of employment was detrimental to him as he did not know what to do when he was made redundant. He put forward that if he had been in possession of such a document he would have been better equipped to raise a grievance in respect of that redundancy.
The Employment Appeals Tribunal upheld the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner, being satisfied that the employees had not been given his terms and conditions of employment, in writing, within two months of commencing employment as required under the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts, 1994 and 2001.
Bright Contracts – Employment contracts and handbooks
BrightPay – Payroll Software
Employee who was dismissed after safety complaint awarded €36,050
Mr Richard Doody from Mallow was dismissed from his position with Denis J Downey, a haulage and warehousing firm based in Co. Cork after he made a complaint to the Health and Safety Authority about potentially dangerous conditions at the firm.
The company admitted that the decision to dismiss the employee was directly linked to the complaint he had made about the firm to the HSA. The Managing Director, Denis Downey acknowledged that they had a sense of betrayal and decided to terminate Mr Doody’s employment when they discovered that he had made the complaint. Mr Doody claimed that he had made a number of approaches to the company about his concerns about the manner in which the transport of hazardous cargoes was being documented before making an anonymous complaint to the HSA. He had understood that his identity would not be made known to his employer.
The EAT found that Mr Doody had been unfairly dismissed and awarded him €35,000 in compensation along with €1,050 in respect of his claim under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts. In its decision the EAT referred to section 27 (3) (b) of the Safety Health & Welfare at Work Act 2005, which provides that an employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation against an employee for making a complaint or representation to his or her Safety Representative or employer or the Authority, as regards any matter relating to safety, health and welfare at work.
Bright Contracts – Employment contracts and handbooks
BrightPay – Payroll Software
Read more at www.irishexaminer.com >
Equality Tribunal awards €95,000 to employee for gender discrimination
Ms Claire Keenan worked for Mortgage Cabin as a mortgage consultant since February 2005. In December 2007 she informed her employer that she was pregnant. She was told on the 13th July 2008, whilst pregnant, that she was being made redundant on the grounds that ‘there wasn’t enough business to go around’. The employer had hired an additional employee six weeks before making Ms Keenan redundant. The equality officer found that the hiring of an additional employee shortly before making Ms Keenan redundant was not consistent with the submission of the employer that he was in serious financial difficulty at the time.
It was alleged that the employer had approached Ms Keenan in the weeks and months prior to the redundancy decision regarding not taking the full maternity leave entitlement. The equality officer was satisfied that the employer did take issue with the employee availing of her full maternity leave entitlements and did seek to put pressure on her to reduce her maternity leave or at least to work from home. In conclusion the equality officer found that Ms Keenan’s wish to avail of her full maternity rights was the catalyst for the redundancy and that she was discriminated against on the gender ground
The employer was ordered to pay Ms Keenan the sum of €95,000, the approximate equivalent of 12 months pay, to compensate her for the distress caused to her as a result of the discrimination.
Bright Contracts – Employment contracts and handbooks
BrightPay – Payroll Software
Employee who did not receive a written contract awarded €1200
This Employment Appeals Tribunal hearing took place in July and was an appeal of a Rights Commissioner recommendation. The employer, a pizza restaurant, hired a delivery driver through an advert in the restaurant window and employed him for just over 2 months. The employee worked in the restaurant carrying out general tasks as well as being a delivery driver. He never received written terms and conditions of employment and sought compensation for this.
At the tribunal hearing, a representative of the restaurant produced a copy of a contract which he said was usually given to delivery drivers but he could not say whether such a contract was given to the individual in this case. He said that these contracts ‘’were always there to be signed but he may not have signed one’’.
The tribunal was satisfied that in this case the individual was employed by the restaurant on a contract of employment and as such was entitled to receive written terms and conditions of employment in accordance with The Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. The individual did not receive these and therefore the tribunal upheld the Rights Commissioner recommendation and awarded €1200 to the individual.
This case highlights that employers need to be aware that they are required by law to give their employees written terms and conditions of employment, even for employees with relatively short temporary contracts. Apart from the cost of the award, the employer in this case also had to take time out to attend the hearings and prepare his defence. When you consider how economic and efficient a written contract can now be prepared, all employers are best advised to ensure that they are compliant.
Bright Contracts – Employment contracts and handbooks
BrightPay – Payroll Software
Sexual Harassment and Harassment at Work
Code of Practice on Sexual Harassment and Harassment at Work
A new code of practice on sexual harassment and harassment at work was approved by the Minister for Justice and Equality this summer. This provides guidance to employers on how to deal with the issue in their workplace and what to include in their policy. Bright Contracts have updated the default policy in the handbook to reflect these changes. The full code of practice is available at www.brightcontracts.ie/docs/codes-of-practice/ but I will take this opportunity to outline some important aspects and key changes.
Overview
The code states that an employer is legally responsible for the sexual harassment and harassment suffered by employees in the course of their work unless he/she took reasonably practicable steps to prevent sexual harassment and harassment from occurring, to reverse the effects of it and to prevent its recurrence. Employers who take the steps set out in the code to prevent sexual harassment or harassment, to reverse the effects of it and to prevent its recurrence, may avoid liability for such acts in any legal proceeding brought against them.
Although the code does not impose any legal obligations in itself, it’s provisions are admissible in evidence and may be taken into account in any criminal or other proceedings before a court and also proceedings before a Labour Court, the Labour Relations Commission, the Employment Appeals Tribunal, the Equality Tribunal and a Rights Commissioner.
Employers are encouraged to follow the recommendations in a way that is appropriate to the size and structure of their organisation.
Discriminatory Grounds
As with the previous code, there are nine discriminatory grounds, but ‘marital status’ has been changed to ‘civil status.’ The nine grounds are:
- Gender
- Civil status
- Family status
- Sexual orientation
- Religious belief or lack of religious belief
- Age
- Disability, lack of disability or the nature of disability
- Race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins
- Membership or non-membership of the Traveller community
Definitions
The definitions of harassment and sexual harassment have been updated.
“Harassment is defined in section 14A(7) of the Employment Equality Act as any form of unwanted conduct related to any of the discriminatory grounds which has the purpose or effect of violating a person's dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person.”
“Sexual harassment is defined in section 14A(7) of the Employment Equality Act as any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature which has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person.”
Non-Employees
The Employment Equality Act protects employees from sexual harassment and harassment by:
- the employee
- fellow employees
- clients
- customers
- other business contacts including any person with whom the employer might reasonably expect the employee to come into contact in the workplace. This may include those who supply or deliver goods/service to the employer, maintenance and other type of professional contractors as well as volunteers.
It is important for employers to consider the application of the code to non-employees. Employers are legally responsible for the sexual harassment and harassment of employees carried out by clients, customers or other business contacts of the employer.
A policy should point out that sexual harassment and harassment by non-employees such as clients, customers and business contacts will not be tolerated and may lead, for example to termination of contract, suspension of services, exclusion from a premises or the imposition of other sanctions.
The scope of the provisions also extend beyond the workplace, for example to conference and training that occur outside the workplace. It may also extend to work-related social events.
Communication
To effectively communicate the policy to employees, the code states that it should be part of the formal induction process and employers should consider an employee handbook to be distributed to all employees as part of the induction process. The handbook would need to be updated regularly to reflect relevant changes.
It states that the policy should include commitments to training staff on issues of sexual harassment and harassment.
The code recognises that the communication of the policy to non-employees is more difficult and has included some measures that the employer could consider.
The code also refers to ensuring the accessibility to policies and procedures, for example the translation of policies and procedures into languages other than English as appropriate or the provision of interpreters.
Defence
It is a defence for an employer to prove that he/she took reasonably practicable steps to prevent:
- the employee from being harassed
- the employee from being treated differently in the workplace or in the course of employment and, if and so far as any such treatment occurred, to reverse the effects of it.
In order to rely on this defence, employers must show that they have comprehensive, accessible, effective policies that focus on prevention, best practice and remedial action, and also effective complaints procedures. The measures taken to put the policies and procedure into practice will also be taken into account by courts and tribunals. Employers will not be able to rely on an excellent policy if it has not been effectively implemented.
Bright Contracts – Employment contracts and handbooks
BrightPay – Payroll Software
