2004 was not a good year for the small employer. Problems from increased family leave may have made the headlines, but there were two other technical changes which will add to small business costs.
First, before 1 October 2004, the statement of initial employment particulars did not have to include or refer to grievance or disciplinary rules and procedures where there were fewer than 20 employees. If problems arose, then there was still a need to follow a fair procedure, but at least when taking someone on, this was part of the paperwork which could be left out.
Now even if you employ just one person, you need to include or cross-refer to both disciplinary rules and procedures.
To add to the threat, there is now a compulsory sanction for getting the paperwork wrong, but only if a claim (of any description) is made in the Employment Tribunal and upheld. The employee may be awarded a minimum of two weeks’ pay, capped at £280 per week, i.e. for most London full-time workers a payment of £560, but with the Tribunal having the power to increase the award up to 4 weeks’ pay (i.e. £1,120).
We have always recommended that small employers consider grievance and disciplinary rules and procedures, even if they were not "compulsory". The effect of the change is to make full documentation for the smaller employer even more desirable. One can try to simplify the rules and procedures, on the basis that exceptional cases are less likely to occur in a given small business. Even so, the cost per head of preparing documentation will be higher in the small business.
The second change affecting small employers relates to disability discrimination. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 exempted businesses with less than 15 staff. This exemption was withdrawn on 1 October 2004.
The result is that small employers are now under a duty to make adjustments where current accommodation or working practices put a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage compared to a non disabled employee. This could extend to making adjustments to premises and re-allocating duties.
While adjustments are to be "reasonable" and one may have regard to financial and other resources, there is the risk that what a tribunal and what the Disability Rights Commission think reasonable and what you think is reasonable could be a long way apart.
The annual review of limits in connection with tribunal awards has now taken place, and is effective on 1 February 2005.
The maximum week’s pay for statutory redundancy calculation purposes goes up from £270 per week to £280, an increase of 3.7%.
The maximum redundancy payment or basic award for unfair dismissal rises as a consequence to £8,400. The limit on the compensatory award goes up from £55,000 to £56,800. The maximum award for Unfair Dismissal is therefore now £65,200.
Coming down to earth, however, the average award for unfair dismissal in 2003/2004 reported by the Employment Tribunal Service was £7,275.
Everyone has sympathy for employees who are genuinely unwell. When advising employers about employees suffering from stress, various medical conditions and resultant absence, it is these words that come up again and again.
In our article published in HR Zone, we consider the introduction of the new rules on regulatory references which come into force on 7 March 2017 and the practical steps that employers must take to comply...
Most of us know the difference between being employed and being self-employed (or at least we think we do). And in everyday laymen's terms, the difference is relatively straightforward and obvious – if you are employed, you work for someone else and, if you are self-employed, you ‘work for yourself'.
This coming year looks to be another busy one with more significant employment law changes coming into force and we have highlighted some of the key changes, which range from the introduction of gender pay...
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).