Mon, 1 Feb 2010

Tribunal rules on holiday lost to illness

Holiday days that were lost to sickness can be carried over into the next year, a tribunal has ruled. In Shah v First West Yorkshire Limited, where Shah had booked four weeks’ holiday but due to sickness absence was unable to take it, the Employment Tribunal followed the recent European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling, which held that holidays can be carried over to the following leave year.

‘This is the first Employment Tribunal case since last year’s related ECJ decisions on sickness and holiday pay,’ said Matthew Tom, employment lawyer at Candey. ‘It is not binding on other tribunals, but is an indication that tribunals will attempt to interpret UK law in line with EU legislation and decisions where possible to do so.’

Men loath to take new paternity leave option

Only one in five working men plans to take up the full sixmonth paternity leave when it comes into affect in April next year, a survey has found.

Under new paternity legislation, new mothers can transfer the second half of their 12-month maternity leave to the baby’s father, but over a quarter of working men said they would not take any of that time off.

Nearly half the respondents listed money concerns as the main factor, while 15% said they were too vital to their business to take six months off.

The study, carried out by YouGov for Orange, also found that 3% believe the senior management in their company are actively against taking paternity leave.

Over three-quarters of respondents, however, said they would use flexible working arrangements if their employer encouraged it.

Orange UK director for small and medium businesses, Martin Lyne, said: ‘It is right that businesses [enable] male employees to take their full paternity leave. And it does not have to mean huge sacrifices by either party.’

Firms scrap sick pay and switch to SSP

Employers are increasingly relying on Statutory Sick Pay rather than providing their own sick pay, research has revealed. Over half (55%) of employers surveyed rely on state-funded statutory sick pay, which is £79 per week, the research conducted by Group Risk Development (GRiD) the trade development body for the group risk industry, found.

Employers are a tough bunch to crack, as 38% had no problem revealing that they felt under no obligation to support sick staff or their family members if they die.

Katharine Moxham, spokesperson for GRiD said: ‘Fostering self sufficiency is a noble aim but it’s no easy task to get consumers to take personal responsibility for their own protection needs. What’s more, it’s not just employees who need protection. Long-term absence can have a devastating impact on a business too, and employers need to factor this into their plans.

‘Where once companies felt duty bound to provide financial support, leisure facilities and even housing for employees, today’s provision is much more streamlined,’ she added.

But the trade body is concerned that not enough employers provide any provision for employees let alone any kind of leisure facility.

Speaking to Payroll World about its concerns Ms Moxham said: ‘It indicates the end of paternalism. There was a time when employers offered all sorts to employees such as death benefits, mortgage subsidies among other things.

‘We encourage employers to provide a Group Income Protection policy (GIP) which also offers services to help rehabilitate people back to work,’ she added.