|
|
|
|
|
|
In the January edition of our Employment Law & HR update, we have published a selection of news, insights, case studies and more on topics including:
- Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act;
- Understanding Shared Parental Leave;
- Overstepping boundaries when contacting staff who are off sick;
- Consultation in small-scale redundancies; and
- Lessons on proper conduct in severance negotiations.
If you require further information on anything included in this update or any employment issue you may be facing, please do not hesitate to contact the Employment team on 01332 867 766 or by replying to this email. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEONATAL CARE (LEAVE AND PAY) ACT: WHAT EMPLOYERS NEED TO KNOW
The government has confirmed that Neonatal Care Leave and Pay will almost certainly come into force from 06 April 2025, providing crucial support to parents of babies in neonatal care.
What is changing?
Under the new law, eligible parents will be entitled to up to 12 weeks of additional leave if their baby is admitted to neonatal care within 28 days of birth and remains in hospital for at least 7 full days. This leave is in addition to maternity, paternity, or Shared Parental Leave.
Employees will have a day-one right to take this leave, and those who meet continuity of service and earnings thresholds will also be entitled to Statutory Neonatal Care Pay.
What does this mean for employers?
While the number of staff affected may be small, businesses will need to update their policies and ensure managers understand the new entitlements. Employers offering enhanced maternity or paternity pay should consider whether they will align Neonatal Care Pay with their existing benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q&A: UNDERSTANDING SHARED PARENTAL LEAVE
Shared Parental Leave (SPL) has been in place for nearly a decade, offering parents greater flexibility in caring for their child during the first year after birth or adoption. However, uptake remains low, with only around 5% of eligible parents using it.
SPL allows parents to split up to 50 weeks of leave and 37 weeks of statutory pay, but eligibility criteria and application processes can be complex. Employers must be aware of their obligations, particularly around managing requests and potential policy updates.
With a government review now underway, changes could be on the horizon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OVERSTEPPING BOUNDARIES WHEN CONTACTING STAFF WHO ARE OFF SICK
This case highlights the fine line between supporting sick employees and crossing into harassment. In Crette Berry v Anglian Water, an employer’s repeated WhatsApp messages during an employee’s post-surgery recovery were found to constitute unlawful harassment.
While maintaining contact with absent staff is essential, excessive or poorly timed communication can be legally risky. Employers must balance business needs with employee well-being, ensuring contact methods and frequency are appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONSULTATION IN SMALL-SCALE REDUNDANCIES: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
A recent Court of Appeal ruling in De Banks Haycocks v ADP RPO UK Ltd has provided key insights into redundancy consultation requirements for smaller restructures. While collective consultation rules apply to large-scale redundancies, this case examined what is expected when fewer employees are at risk.
The decision highlights the importance of a fair and transparent process, particularly around selection criteria and employee communication. It also clarifies whether procedural missteps can be corrected at the appeal stage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LESSONS ON PROPER CONDUCT IN SEVERANCE NEGOTIATIONS
A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling in Gallagher v McKinnon’s Auto and Tyres Ltd highlighted key considerations for employers when using protected conversations to end employment by agreement. These conversations, which allow for off-the-record discussions about termination, can be valuable for resolving disputes, redundancy issues, or concerns over misconduct.
However, employers must ensure that the conversation is conducted properly to remain protected from later tribunal claims. Improper conduct—such as applying undue pressure or failing to provide adequate time to consider the offer—can make the conversation admissible in court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Speak to one of our employment law & HR experts
|
|
|
|
|
|
© Copyright 2024 | Flint Bishop Limited. All rights reserved The content of this email is provided for general interest and information. It contains only a brief overview of aspects of the subject matter and is not intended to provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and is not intended to provide a substitute for it. Your information will be processed in accordance with our privacy notice. Flint Bishop Limited (Flint Bishop) is a Limited Company registered in England and Wales (Reg No: 05991683). Registered office: Pinnacle Building, 2 Prospect Place, Pride Park, Derby DE24 8HG. Flint Bishop Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA ID: 8006955). VAT No: 469 2812 59. The word ‘partner’, used in connection with Flint Bishop, refers to a director or employee and should not be construed as indicating any relationship of partnership (within the meaning of the Partnership Act 1890) exists between all or any of the individuals so designated or between any individual and Flint Bishop. A list of directors’ names is available for inspection at our registered office. Flint Bishop, Flint Bishop Solicitors, FB Costs and FB Training are also trading names of Flint Bishop Limited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|