Archive for the ‘HR’ Category
European Decision on Sick Leave & Holidays
Well just like London buses the cases on this are coming thick and fast! You can read our last blog posts on this here and here .
A German case was heard by the European Court of Justice on Tuesday this week regarding whether an employee who was off ill could carry forward holidays. This seems now to be the main issue that is unresolved.
Eversheds have produced a piece for their Education HR publication. Although it’s aimed at educational establishments the impact of the case affects all employers.
You can click through to the article here.
The position now seems to be that workers who are on sick leave have a choice: they can take annual leave if they want to, but if they don’t want to they can insist on postponing their annual leave and taking it at a later date. That can even mean taking it in a later holiday year if it’s not possible to take the leave before the current year ends.
I can’t help that thinking that this is one step forward and then two back. As always with this particular issue – watch this space!
Steve Clark
Retirement, Sick Leave & TUPE
We must admit it’s getting really difficult to keep up to speed with all of the cases that are around in the UK and Europe on key issues that you need to be aware of.
To help make sense of it all DMH Stallard produce their Employment Law Radar. This publication covers cases that you should be aware of as well as consultations on the go. It’s like cramming for your homework before an exam. All the facts that you need to know in one place. We strongly recommend that you click here and have a look.
It may well be the best 15 minutes that you spend today!
There’s a quick “heads up” on forthcoming cases in the European Court of Justice and Supreme Court that may shed some light on Sick Leave and Holidays and Justification for Compulsory Retirement.
Steve Clark
Salary Sacrifice & VAT – Chapter & Verse
Many of our clients have asked us for some guidance on the affect that the decision in the AstraZeneca case will have on the benefits they offer through Salary Sacrifice.
It’s been an area of some confusion regarding the impact that this will have on benefits such as pension contributions and Childcare Vouchers.
We are indebted to Dechert LLP for their legal update on this very subject. You can click through to it here.
It’s a really good summary of what’s affected and what isn’t. However, as always, if you’re unsure you’ll need to get advice from your own tax advisers.
If you don’t regularly use a tax adviser and would like us to introduce you to one of the firms we work with please let us know.
Steve Clark
Holiday Entitlements for Sick Workers : More Developments!
It seems that this issue is going to continue to be a perennial favourite until we get some legislative clarity.
In his blog Innes Clark of Morton Fraser solicitors comments on a recent Tribunal decision on the issue of whether an employee who is off sick can carry forward unused holidays. It’s an issue that has seen many twists and turns in terms of whether this is possible. It’s all got a little like the Little Britain character Vicky Pollard – yeah but, no but, yeah but etc etc.
Have a read of Innes’s excellent article here. As always if you have any employees in this position you would be well advised to speak to your legal adviser. If you don’t have one – I’m sure Morton Fraser would love to speak to you!
Ombudsman overrules Trustees
There has been a recent decision by the Pensions Ombudsman that effectively overruled the decision made by the trustees about how the benefits for an employee that had died should be paid. We are obliged once again to Hogan Lovells LLP for their Pension Monthly Update. You can click through to the relevant page here.
The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman upheld a complaint by the member’s son. The Ombudsman criticised the trustees for:
-
not investigating an apparent contradiction between the partner’s claim that she and the member had “been together” for 12 years whereas the employer’s records showed that the member had changed his address to his partner’s just over a year before he died;
-
not questioning why it was the member’s son, not the partner, who was the informant on the member’s death certificate;
-
handing one of the member’s sons an “information on relatives” form at the member’s funeral, without an explanation as to why it was needed; failing to chase the son to return the form; and not contacting the other son at all;
-
giving the son’s statements that his father had had two previous relationships in the period when the partner claimed she and the member had been “together” much
less weight than the recollections of his father’s colleagues and failing to interview the partner or the other women involved; -
taking 11 months to provide a first stage decision under the scheme’s internal dispute resolution procedure.
This all really does go to show that trustees need to have a robust process in place to consider all of the relevant information before they make a decision. In too many of the cases we come across lip service is paid to considering who might potentially benefit and instead the payment is paid to either the partner or the named beneficiary on the last Expression of Wishes form.
As life assurance is one of the most common forms of employee benefit this really is an aspect of governance that needs to be taken very seriously. If your adviser is not already offering a full claims management and advice service as part of the services you pay for – you need to talk to us. Click the Contact Us tab at the top of the page to arrange an initial meeting at our expense.
Steve Clark