The EZHR Weekly HR Update - 11th April 2023

On this week’s update we talk all things Whistleblowing, new wage rates, unfair dismissal, and evil plans….

The government have announced a review of whistleblowing framework. During the Covid Pandemic the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and Health and Safety Executive (HSE) received increased numbers of whistleblowing claims.

It would seem that the government may want to create a narrower definition of what can be flagged, and it will engage whistleblowers, key charities, employers, and regulators and to review:

·       who is covered by whistleblowing protections?

·       what information is available to the public and how it is presented?

·       what should best practice look like?

While there are no changes now, it is expected that there may be some changes to how and why a disclosure along with the obligations for organisations responding to them.

The government have announced changes to the National Living Wage along with new weekly rates for SSP redundancy and Maternity, Adoption, Paternity, Shared Parental, Redundancy & SSP.

These changes came into effect on April 1st 2023 and need to be processed by your first payroll after the effective date. They have estimated 2.5 million people will benefit from the rise of the National Living Wage to 10 per cent.

If you need any help you can find our guide here https://www.ezhr.uk/news/he-ezhr-guide-to-april-statutory-changes

Finally, over the last few weeks we have seen some Tribunal outcomes that have reinforced that the employer’s behaviour will always come under scrutiny, cunning plans are generally not cunning.

In Maxwell v HBOS, HBOS were accused of unfair dismissal for a long-term sickness absence. The business successfully defended the claim, but they were able to demonstrate they had been thoughtful and intentional in the actions they took, followed up on action points but more than anything else followed their own policies.

Compare this Wade vs Johnson where a salesperson was dismissed, then asked to pretend he had resigned so they could end his employment rights, to allow hm to be re-engaged a month later. While Jansen did accept it had some “procedural shortcomings” the tribunal did not hold back and cited that those involved to be “wholly lacking in credibility” and said their evidence demonstrated a “casual disregard for accuracy; at worst, deliberate dishonesty”.

Remember if you need any help on these issues don’t hesitate to get in contact at info@ezhr.uk