Monthly Archives: September 2011

Agency workers – alarms and excursions

With the Agency Worker Regulations (coming into force on 1st October 2011), 40 pages of Regulations have 50 pages of guidance to explain them! Even so, people can still get confused, and become convinced that they have to do things that are not required.

The long-term carer, supplied by an agency to my mother, to help look after my father has been advised by his manager that the Agency Worker Regulations means that he must swop assignments every 12 weeks.

Of course, the Regulations say nothing of the sort. And the agency’s concern, that there would be some problems if the carer was on long term assignment, is a huge misreading of the Regulations as my mother has no other employees, let alone ‘comparators’, whose terms of employment might influence what the carer’s terms should be

So, after a phone call to the agency, the situation is now sorted out – and my father will not be faced by unnecessary rotation of his carer. But this is not an isolated case, and through my father’s carer I am aware of other agencies who are also misreading the Regulations.

I am also hearing rumours that temps must be taken on as permanent employees after 12 weeks (not so). Many clients think they can simply swop the agency the temp works for and keep the same temp (some kind of ‘ring’). This is also not true as there are anti avoidance provisions.

Before you listen to rumour or read the endless regulations and guidance, you might appreciate our free short guideto the regulations.


Annabel Kaye is Managing Director of Irenicon Ltd, a specialist employment law consultancy.
Tel: 08452 303050 Fax: 08452 303060
You can follow Annabel on

Leave a comment

Filed under employment law

Open and shut

Sooner or later every HR practitioner is faced with the open and shut case. A case where on the fact of it, the actions taken are so blatantly wrong that there seems little point in taking a lot of time to decide what needs to be done. Busy line managers can exert considerable pressure to come to a conclusion and move on.

 The canny HR manager often uses employment law as a way of slowing things down and encouraging everyone to reflect. It is much easier sometimes to say “the lawyers want us to do this” than it is to say “I think your decision may be flawed and misses some key data”. I have had HR practitioners ring me and say “Give me a reason why we can’t make a decision today”.

 When it comes to decisions on discipline and dismissal the employment law requirements for a good process are not that different to the classic good process for making a sound decision. The problem is most of us are not good at making sound decisions – particularly when we are upset.

Managers, being human are often keen to rush to a conclusion and by-pass any real decision making process. This can cost the organisation dearly – not only in legal terms – but in terms of losing individuals who might otherwise have benefited the organisation over the longer term.

 Here are some open and shut cases.

 Before you click the link to find out how it turned out, ask yourself: What would my managers do?

 What would I advise?

  1.  Seeing red
    A customer complained that a waitress deliberately tipped a jug of iced-water into his lap and stormed off. The waitress had only been employed for six weeks. When asked about the incident she agreed that is what she did. Her line manager was anxious to ‘get rid’ saying she was obviously volatile.
  2. A word to the wise
    A retailer had half a dozen staff in each of three shops. He was a very hands-on boss and knew all his staff quite well and saw them regularly. He regularly opened and closed each of the shops and often worked alongside his staff during the day.
    One of his staff had worked for him for a couple of years, and had been quite reliable and hard working. He started getting into work late and seemed to have lost all interest in the job or getting in on time. One day, the owner was standing by the door of the shop when the guy turned up 15 minutes late for his shift. “What time do you call this?” said the boss.
    He was met with a mouthful of abuse in front of all the other staff at the shop.
  3. To catch a thief
    Our client had two warehouses at opposite ends of the country. They carried similar stock, had similar staffing levels, and were in similar areas (from a demographic point of view), yet one warehouse had a shrinkage (theft) rate way above the others.
    On a fairly regular basis, security would catch someone stealing an item or two. They were interviewed and dismissed. All the captured thieves said “everybody is doing it” … but they would say that, wouldn’t they?

It is easy to blame employment law for having to ‘jump through hoops’ and go through tortuous and unnecessary processes. But people decisions are very important decisions for the organisation, and for the individuals concerned. Employment law places great stress on the decision making process (otherwise known as the investigatory and disciplinary process). We shouldn’t need laws to make us go through a rounded decision making process, but following employment law requirements can have that beneficial effect. We can use employment law related decisions as a way of teaching better decision processes – to the benefit of the business in the round. Or, as we often say, “let’s turn our lemons into lemonade”.

Annabel Kaye is Managing Director of Irenicon Ltd, a specialist employment law consultancy.
Tel: 08452 303050 Fax: 08452 303060
Website :
You can follow Annabel on

Leave a comment

Filed under discipline and dismissal, employment law, Security, Theft