According to a report commissioned by PricewaterhouseCoopers, 53% of employed males and 21% of employed females will watch the World Cup football matches scheduled during office hours. Over 1,000 workers took part in the survey.
5% indicated that they intend to view the games without permission form their employer or call in sick. The report comments that 9% will use annual leave and 11% will make use of flexible working policies to take time off.
There are just three months to go now until the event so employers should be making plans to cover the absences if they want to prevent disruption to productivity and services.
The games will not find favour with everyone and those less interested in football may be perfectly willing to pick up some overtime pay.
Alan Lewis, employment Partner at Manchester firm George Davies Solicitors LLP says, “if the results shown in this report reflect reality, businesses would be well advised to take a good look again now at their staffing requirements for the summer period and make sure that requests for leave or for flexible working by employees are made in line with their company policies, whilst balancing the need to keep staff motivated in this challenging economic environment.”
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Monday, 15 March 2010
When an employer may say “Get yer hair cut”....
A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling has clarified the law relating to sex discrimination and dress codes at work and will make it harder for employees to claim successfully for discrimination.
In a case brought by a trainee police constable, the EAT ruled that the Metropolitan Police were not guilty of unlawful discrimination just because the detailed dress code rules for men and women were different. What mattered was whether the dress codes for both sexes were broadly similar in their intended effect and whether the sanctions for breach were the same.
The employee alleged that he was discriminated against because of his shoulder length hair. When he reported at the police training centre at Hendon, he was told that he must have it cut or face disciplinary action. His argument was his hair was slicked back and tied in a bun at the back of his head and that a woman in the same situation would not have been ordered to have her hair cut.
But the EAT held that the dress code had to be looked at as a whole, that if the code required a conventional standard of appearance and neatness, such a requirement was not discriminatory in itself, and that a difference in treatment does not necessarily amount to more favourable treatment of one sex compared with the other.
Said employment law expert Alan Lewis of Manchester-based firm George Davies Solicitors LLP: “This ruling in Dantsie v Met Police is important because it makes it clear that, although dress codes for men and women at work must be equal, they may be different. The important thing is that the same standard of general appearance must apply - for example, a requirement for conventional smartness - also the treatment of anyone who breaches the rules must be the same.
“But beyond that, individual aspects of the code can be applied differently to men and women; so for example a requirement for employees of a merchant bank to dress with conventional smartness could mean that a man wouldn’t be allowed to wear a smart dress to work.”
NOTE: This is not legal advice; it is intended to provide information of general interest about current legal issues.
In a case brought by a trainee police constable, the EAT ruled that the Metropolitan Police were not guilty of unlawful discrimination just because the detailed dress code rules for men and women were different. What mattered was whether the dress codes for both sexes were broadly similar in their intended effect and whether the sanctions for breach were the same.
The employee alleged that he was discriminated against because of his shoulder length hair. When he reported at the police training centre at Hendon, he was told that he must have it cut or face disciplinary action. His argument was his hair was slicked back and tied in a bun at the back of his head and that a woman in the same situation would not have been ordered to have her hair cut.
But the EAT held that the dress code had to be looked at as a whole, that if the code required a conventional standard of appearance and neatness, such a requirement was not discriminatory in itself, and that a difference in treatment does not necessarily amount to more favourable treatment of one sex compared with the other.
Said employment law expert Alan Lewis of Manchester-based firm George Davies Solicitors LLP: “This ruling in Dantsie v Met Police is important because it makes it clear that, although dress codes for men and women at work must be equal, they may be different. The important thing is that the same standard of general appearance must apply - for example, a requirement for conventional smartness - also the treatment of anyone who breaches the rules must be the same.
“But beyond that, individual aspects of the code can be applied differently to men and women; so for example a requirement for employees of a merchant bank to dress with conventional smartness could mean that a man wouldn’t be allowed to wear a smart dress to work.”
NOTE: This is not legal advice; it is intended to provide information of general interest about current legal issues.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)