Legal mediation: time to start talking!

With court business still at a low ebb, there has never been a better time to consider mediation. Find out how online mediation works, where to access it and how you can try it out

Impact of COVID-19 on civil business 

First, the bad news. Ongoing Government restrictions mean that, for the foreseeable future, we’re likely to have social distancing in one form or another. It therefore follows that “normal” human contact is, at best, going to be difficult. One result is that many legal actions have been paused and proofs/tribunals in civil cases have been put off, causing a large backlog of cases. Many have been put back by years. The civil justice system as we have known it is not functioning, clients’ interests cannot be taken forward quickly, and lawyers’ businesses are suffering. So, what’s the good news?

Well, there has never been a better time for lawyers and clients to consider legal mediation! Mediation is an approach that puts client involvement, and their best interests, first. It is quicker, and cheaper (for both clients and lawyers as there are no court fees), than going to court, carries less risk and, with direct solicitor involvement, keeps clients fully legally informed and in control. Most importantly, using an appropriate online conferencing facility (most mediators use the Zoom Pro platform), it is possible to maintain client and legal confidentiality (more on this later). The platform provides for clients and their lawyers to be kept in a waiting room, then to be admitted to a joint meeting room and, when the need arises, to be placed in breakout rooms for private, confidential conversations between parties, their lawyers and the mediator.

In Scotland, while several lawyers, who are early adopters, use mediation, they are still a minority. Many litigation lawyers haven’t yet had the opportunity to become familiar with, or take part in, legal mediation. In some senses, the Scottish legal profession has seemed reluctant to embrace it, despite it being the norm in many other jurisdictions, but current circumstances may persuade it to do so.

Legal mediation as a win-win-win option

In Ontario, Canada, mandatory mediation has been part of the court procedure for 21 years. Most litigated cases go through mediation. A mediator is appointed and arranges a mediation meeting early in the court process. Prior to that, parties must exchange a mediation statement setting out legal and factual issues, alongside supporting documents. Failure to comply leads to financial penalties being imposed and can result in cases being dismissed or defences repelled. 

Many litigation lawyers worried that mandatory mediation would threaten their financial wellbeing through reduced fees. Unexpectedly, the outcome was much more positive. Mediation, now an integral part of court procedure, means lawyers must prepare themselves, and their clients, to participate and negotiate effectively, in the same way as they need to prepare for a proof or tribunal hearing. As a result, those lawyers recover legal costs and fees in preparing for, and taking part in, the mediation. They get paid a lot earlier too, rather than having to wait until a settlement just before a court hearing or a long time afterwards. In theory, this should free their time to address the cases of additional clients. 

In Scotland, mediation is not an integral part of the court procedure, but it is still available for lawyers and their clients to use and recover costs through efficiencies of the process. In commercial mediation the norm is for both parties to bear their own mediation costs (mediators cost a lot less than court cases). In employment/workplace mediation, employers bear the cost of mediation for both parties. Likewise, in litigation where insurance is a factor, for example personal injury cases, it is the norm for insurers to meet the cost of mediation, including the costs of preparing for it and participating in it. 

Prior to mediation, it is usual for the parties to enter into an agreement to mediate, through which they commit to engage with the process with a view to reaching a mutually acceptable outcome. Within this, it is possible, indeed desirable, for both parties to identify who is meeting the preparation and participation costs to avoid dispute afterwards. It is in the interest of insurers to participate in mediation at an early stage. It prevents the parties becoming embedded in their positions, and will reduce their long-term legal costs, while failure to participate in an offered mediation could result in increased costs by way of court-imposed penalty. 

In the event of settlement following mediation in a litigated case (the vast majority of court cases do settle), or even in an unlitigated one, it will result in lawyers being paid for their hard work much sooner (a particular boon at this time) and, more importantly, their clients’ cases will be settled much earlier, leading to happier clients and capacity for further cases. Generally speaking, clients whose legal disputes are settled quickly with less cost, are more satisfied and therefore more likely to instruct the same lawyers in future cases. If they’ve been dragged through an expensive court or tribunal process for years, they might not be!

Accessing mediation

Scottish Mediation keeps a Register of Accredited Mediators for the Scottish Government – details can be found on its website at www.scottishmediation.org.uk. Other organisations that include mediators are the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, RICS, CIArb, Relationship Scotland, the University of Strathclyde Mediation Clinic and Edinburgh Sheriff Court Mediation Service, supported by CAB Edinburgh.

Zoom and online mediation/solicitor training

You needn’t wait for normal service to be resumed through the courts in order to progress a client’s case. Mediation can be undertaken now, safely and confidentially, online. Everyone can be there, they can see everyone else and participate to the extent that they want. In the run-up to mediation, the mediator can have pre-mediation meetings with lawyers and their clients by video, enabling parties to become familiar with and trust the technology. By doing so, people are reassured that the actual mediation online is something that they can participate in and that it will work.

Paul Kirkwood, Law Society of Scotland accredited commercial mediator, and Malcolm Currie, a CEDR accredited workplace/employment mediator, are teaming up with Scottish Mediation and its director Graham Boyack to offer online CPD mediation training, using Zoom Pro, to all professionals including mediators and lawyers. The sessions will be fully interactive, featuring mock mediations using commercial and employment scenarios where participants will be coached and encouraged to use the Zoom Pro technology, including the use of breakout rooms. Participants can choose to participate as mediators, clients or lawyers in the role-plays, ideally trying all three for a more ’rounded’ feel of the process. This will provide a safe online learning environment for all, and hopefully go some way to demystifying the mediation process for many lawyers, to give them greater confidence to participate in legal mediation, look after the best interests of their clients and get their businesses going again. Details are on the Scottish Mediation website, but feel free to get in touch with any of us.

This article was previously published in Law Society of Scotland Journal, June 2020

I’d be interested to know your thoughts on this subject, so please leave a comment, but if you’d like to discuss this topic more directly please contact me at malcolm@strathesk.co.uk or give me a call on 07736068787.

A Day to Remember

Forget-me-not

28 April each year is International Workers’ Memorial Day (#IWMD20 #IWMD2020)

This year International Workers’ Memorial Day has a special poignancy. Like many people, last Thursday I took part in #ClapForCarers joining friends and neighbours, each on own doorsteps, to applaud NHS staff, key workers and carers. These are people for whom the risk of going to work has risen significantly in recent weeks.

Yet they still go.

Already, 82 NHS workers have died helping to save others, and recent reports from care homes demonstrate an increased risk there as well. However, we shouldn’t forget pharmacy staff, utilities workers, delivery drivers, refuse collectors, people working in food supply and retail, and many others, putting themselves at risk keeping essential services running.

Right now, taking adequate time to assess and mitigate against work related risks has rarely been more important.

In recent years, increasing numbers of people have described taking precautions to prevent work activities from injuring people as “health & safety gone mad”.  However, that view disrespects the aim to make sure people go home as healthy as they were when they arrived at work.  In spite of those measures, Health & Safety Executive statistics for last year make stark reading:

From: HSE Health & Safety Statistics 2018/19

And that’s in the UK where we’ve had the Health & Safety at Work Act in place since 1974.

Covid-19 aside, according to the International Labour Organisation (ILO), across the world:

  • Each year, more than 2.3 million men and women die as a result of work-related accidents and diseases
  • Workers suffer approximately 340 million accidents each year and fall victim to some 160 million incidents of work-related illnesses
  • One worker dies every 15 seconds worldwide. 6,000 workers die every day.
  • More people die whilst at everyday work than those fighting wars.

International Workers’ Memorial Day is a reminder not to be complacent, to avoid seeing common sense anticipation of ‘accidents’ (and taking steps to stop them from happening) as an unnecessary imposition.

But, right now, IMWD is an opportunity to bring to mind everyone who is at risk, for whatever reason because of their job, and thank those who gave their lives in the past as well as those who continue to risk theirs for the rest of us.

I’d be interested to know your thoughts on this subject, so please leave a comment, but if you’d like to discuss this topic more directly please contact me at malcolm@strathesk.co.uk or give me a call on 07736068787.

Governing Change at Work

There has been a lot of discussion about corporate governance in recent years, even more about the place of the workforce within that. 

With that in mind, an article in City A.M. caught my eye this week.

What I found particularly interesting in it is Andy Haldane, Chief Economist of the Bank of England, widening the debate on governance to include considerations of wider stakeholders than the shareholders.  There have been tentative steps in this direction in the years since the banking crisis of 2008, with some voices calling for a change of approach but there hasn’t been any visible progress to date. 

Back in 2016, Theresa May stated

“If I’m prime minister, we’re going to change that system – and we’re going to have not just consumers represented on company boards, but workers as well…!”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/theresa-may-board-corporate-plan-germany-france-productivity-economics-a7132221.html

She abandoned this commitment to give workers a voice on Boards in 2018, before any details on the plans had been developed, but the basis was apparently similar to arrangements in Germany where worker representation at board level is long established.

As a union officer, I worked with several organisations that had provision for a staff representative on their board, albeit they were reluctant to implement those arrangements.  In many respects, given the amount of money organisations invest in recruiting, employing and training their staff, it’s a surprise that they don’t value them as the repository of organisational knowledge that they are.  Meanwhile, in relation to the views expressed by Andy Haldane, it would be interesting to see if that reluctance persists should there be a wider change in governance culture.

Other employers with whom I worked had gone down the employee-ownership route. This is an approach that has significant potential, but that can also be fraught with difficulties if it isn’t handled correctly.  For one of the companies with which I worked, there was serious upset because they hadn’t prepared properly – because they hadn’t invested the time and effort to build sufficient trust between management and the union representatives, the business saw the collective arrangement as cramping their commercial flexibility, while their staff saw employee ownership as a ‘union busting’ tactic. 

There has been a recent upturn in the number of companies moving towards employee-ownership, seemingly in part prompted by Capital Gains Tax relief and increasing drives to improve employee engagement, in part by increasing evidence that properly involving your staff in your business can boost growth.  There is certainly evidence that it can be an effective approach in improving business performance, but can it meet Andy Haldane’s aspirations?  Perhaps by current measures of success, but are those measures fit for the future?

There has been significant academic research into ways of measuring company performance.  One I have been exploring over recent months is the Total Stakeholder Value model developed by the Maturity Institute.  Their objective is to “help create the most responsible form of capitalism for Planet, People, Value” by promoting what they call Whole System Management measured through an adapted OMINDEX “AAA” rating system.  What does that mean?  Essentially, they’re looking at key measures such as customer service, environmental standards and treatment of staff alongside more usual economic measures to establish which approaches are more sustainable in a holistic sense.

From a Strathesk Resolutions perspective, with the direction these conversations suggest, the model of Management-Staff partnership that we help companies to develop would seem to fit well.  Staff often hold the key to knowledge that companies need – in that sense, putting in place cultural mechanisms for open dialogue could make a significant difference to business performance (“Strategic Unionism and Partnership” (2004) – Huzzard, Gregory & Scott).

Linking back to role of unions in boards in Germany, while it’s not a perfect model, it is one that shows what could be done with proper Management-Staff partnership and real staff involvement

If that’s something you’d like to explore, please get in touch!

Bullying at work shouldn’t be hidden by ‘playground’ stigma

This is Anti-Bullying Week 2018 (#ABW2018), with a series of events, articles and publications aimed at making the problem of bullying something about which we all know more and are better equipped to stop.

As is inevitable, many websites and much of the Anti-Bullying Week 2018 material focuses on bullying amongst children, particularly in schools.  However, that doesn’t mean we can forget that for many people, bullying is a reality of their day to day working lives.  If you think you’re being bullied, please don’t feel you’re alone.  TUC commissioned research in 2015 found that in the UK almost a third of people experience bullying at work (and another 30% have witnessed it). 

This year’s theme is “Choose Respect” (#ChooseRespect), but bullying behaviours can go far beyond a lack of respect.  Agency Central describe bullying as encompassing:

  • Exclusion
  • Unwelcome sexual advances
  • Verbal insults
  • Rumour spreading
  • Purposely preventing career advancement
  • Threats in relation to job security
  • Humiliation
  • Being overly critical

These are all aggressive/passive-aggressive actions, but take care also of the “charismatic bully” who may be more difficult to spot:

This type of bully will not rely on physical force to intimidate their targets, but rather will use subtle manipulation to exert their power over others.

In recent months I’ve advised several individual clients, each of whom has experienced bullying at work, on how to tackle the problem.  Although they are based in very different parts of the UK, there are key similarities in their situations:

  • Each knew they weren’t happy with their interaction with their manager;
  • Each has been exposed to 2 or more of the behaviours mentioned above;
  • In spite of this, each failed to recognise that they were being bullied.

With smaller employers, many of the problems have arisen from the lack of management structure, but even companies with great policies in place can face problems.  In 2 of the cases, the employer is large and has excellent Equalities, Bullying & Harassment and/or Dignity at Work polices.  With a bit of guidance on how to pull together and present evidence that their treatment falls outwith those policies, they’ve made real progress towards solving the problem.

Of course, sometimes there’s a deeper problem.  I have advised several employers over the years where inappropriate behaviours have become a part of their managerial culture.  The reasons behind these behaviours are too many and varied to go into here, but this recent article from Psychology Today provides a pretty useful exploration.  And underlying all of this is our ongoing economic and political uncertainty.  In 2015, ACAS stated:

as we look ahead to 2016, one finding in our recent paper especially resonates: the strong correlation between restructuring and organisational change and increased rates of workplace bullying.

Now, unless I’m reading the commentary wrong, uncertainty, restructuring and organisational change aren’t going away any time soon, so there is real merit in taking measures to prevent bullying from taking hold.

At the same time, there is increasing evidence of significant detrimental impact on personal and organisational performance.  Indeed, more research from ACAS estimated the cost of workplace bullying to the UK economy as £18 billion. 

In other words, for business to be successful, and for the economy to grow, this is an issue where increased awareness, and real efforts to curtail bullying, simply aren’t optional.

I’d be interested to know your thoughts on this subject, so please leave a comment, but if you’d like to discuss this topic more directly please contact me at malcolm@strathesk.co.uk or give me a call on 07736068787.

Are you dying to go home?

An accident waiting to happen? Every year more people are killed at work than in wars

 

28 April each year is International Workers’ Memorial Day (#IWMD18 #IWMD2018) so, for 2018, it falls on Saturday.

It’s hard to believe that the world of work is still so dangerous.  Many of us underestimate the risk of the things we do each day. How many people in the UK treat driving along the road as the single most dangerous thing they do?  Yet every day 5 people die doing just that.  The same goes for many of the activities we do every day at work – lifting and carrying heavy boxes, walking up and down stairs (especially while talking on your mobile phone), etc.  There’s a long list of things we all do in our working day, often without thinking, that are significantly more dangerous than we ever give them credit.

Some people describe taking precautions to prevent such activities from injuring people as “health & safety gone mad”.   However, that view disrespects the aim to make sure people go home as healthy as they were when they arrived at work.  In spite of those measures, 142 people in the UK still died after going to work in 2014/15.  Even more worrying are the estimates of 13,000 people dying each year because of past exposure to harmful conditions at work, 8,000 people dying of occupation-related cancers and 4,000 from exposure to dust, fumes or chemicals.  And that’s in the UK where we’ve had the Health & Safety at Work Act in place since 1974.

According to the International Labour Organisation (ILO), across the world:
  • Each year, more than two million men and women die as a result of work-related accidents and diseases

  • Workers suffer approximately 270 million accidents each year and fall victim to some 160 million incidents of work-related illnesses

  • Hazardous substances kill 440,000 workers annually – asbestos claims 100,000 lives

  • One worker dies every 15 seconds worldwide. 6,000 workers die every day. More people die whilst at work than those fighting wars.

International Workers’ Memorial Day is a reminder not to be complacent, to avoid seeing common sense anticipation of ‘accidents’, and taking steps to stop them from happening, as an unnecessary imposition.

IMWD also provides an opportunity to reflect, to remember the people in the UK and across the world who have died trying to support their families and possibly to attend one of the many events to mark the Day across the country.

 

I’d be interested to know your thoughts on this subject, so please leave a comment, but if you’d like to discuss this topic more directly please contact me at malcolm@strathesk.co.uk or give me a call on 07736068787.

 

International Women’s Day – is it needed?

Grand Canyon, Nevada USA

Today is International Women’s Day, so I thought it was timely to reflect on perceptions of women’s place in UK society.

 

A recent survey published by Sky News has suggested that a majority of Britons think that feminism has gone far enough.  But has it?  There are clear contradictions within the findings: 70% of people think men are paid more than women for the same work; 65% believe a man will be favoured over an equally qualified woman, yet:

a total of 67% of Britons think feminism has either gone too far (40%) or gone as far it should go (27%)

Perplexingly, women themselves are almost as prone to thinking that enough is enough, with 61% either thinking feminism has gone too far (35%) or has gone far enough (26%).

Whether or not this recent finding is a manifestation of the increasing refrain of “PC gone mad” is a matter of speculation, but it is disappointing that attitudes seem to be so at odds with reality.

That said, some progress is being made – UK companies employing more than 250 people now have less than a month until they have to report their gender pay gaps, which I suspect will leave many scrabbling to reach some kind of balance.  Others may, as has been done for many years, identify that a small or reducing gap means that enough is being done.

Yet, while the gender pay gap is widest for the over 40s, alarmingly the gap for people in their 20s has been increasing, so there really is no room for complacency.

 

Article 23.2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work

The UK signed up for that 80 years ago this coming December, passed the Equal Pay Act in 1970, and pulled other discrimination together in the Equalities Act 2010, yet we still don’t seem able to deliver the non-discriminating, fair society to which those commitments aspire.  Everyone has a value, and everyone should be respected.

The sad thing is that 110 years since its origin in the USA, there is still a need for International Women’s Day because, while the UK is significantly better than many countries, we still have a very, very long way to go until women are truly treated as equals in all aspects of society.

 

Shared Parental Leave, Another Push?

The Government is running a campaign to encourage new parents to share their parental leave.

Shared Parental Leave is an option that’s been available for a couple of years now, but has never really taken off.

A recent article in Personnel Today refers to Government figures indicating that only 2% of families have taken up the option of sharing parental leave.  This primarily seems to be because there’s no provision for the person receiving a share of the leave to get any pay. While some employers, largely legal firms, have agreed to pay parental leave sharers as if they were on maternity leave, they are definitely in the minority.

When I wrote this LinkedIn article back in 2016, I didn’t expect things to improve any time soon – sadly, I haven’t been disabused on that score. However, until shared parental leave is put on an even footing with maternity/adoption leave, I suspect it will only be the minority of families who can afford the drop in income who will have an option to take up the provision.

And I know the image attached to this post should have related to the page from the Government website, but who can resist baby pandas?!

Good Riddance to Employment Tribunal Fees

Well, it’s been a long time coming, but the Cameron Government’s decision to charge fees for people to raise claims in the Employment Tribunal has finally been shown to be illegal.

Created with Nokia Refocus

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has ruled that charging people up to £1200 so they can challenge the legality of their employer’s actions is illegal.

Fees were never introduced in Northern Ireland, and it is notable that there was no drop off in the number of applications to go to their Industrial Tribunal.  Meanwhile, across Great Britain, ET applications plummeted by 70%.  In Scotland, the SNP Government stood for election in 2015 with a pledge that, as soon as they had the power to do so, they would legislate to remove Employment Tribunal fees, justifying this on the premise that someone who has just unfairly lost their employment is unlikely to be able to find the money and will, therefore, be denied access to justice.

Introduced in 2013, fees were initially justified as being to reduce the number of “weak claims”, though a financial incentive later became apparent with the Justice Minister at the time stating

We want people, where they can, to pay a fair contribution for the system they are using, which will encourage them to look for alternatives.

That case was never particularly convincing and the result, inevitably, was that many people with a valid claim were unable to bring it because they couldn’t pay the fee.

Alongside the fees, the Cameron Government also introduced mandatory Early Conciliation.  This is a process whereby the parties, with facilitation by ACAS, can try to reach an out of court settlement and is something applicants have to do before they can complete their ET application.  Although there’s nothing wrong with this in principle, my experience of it wasn’t good.  I have found few employers prepared to negotiate towards a settlement, preferring to gamble on whether or not the applicant could find enough cash for the fee.  Perhaps, with fees now found to be illegal, there will be a greater incentive for all sides to take a more pragmatic, conciliatory approach.

Dave Prentis, the UNISON General Secretary, welcomed the Supreme Court ruling saying:

The government has been acting unlawfully, and has been proved wrong – not just on simple economics, but on constitutional law and basic fairness too.

In this context, the positive role of trade unions shouldn’t be underestimated, and not just because it is through UNISON’s expertise and persistence that this ruling has been achieved, but more locally and practically as well.  A well-trained union rep can defuse and head off the vast majority of cases referred to them, most often through facilitating a pragmatic solution, sometimes through persuading an individual that their case doesn’t stack up.  As an example, this leads to a significant reduction in the number of cases going to grievance, and those that do proceed tend to be much better presented.  This is something that many employers could easily miss.

That principle also filters through to ET applications.  Unions take great care in presenting cases, cases they support are exceptionally unlikely to be regarded by the Tribunal as “malicious, vexatious or frivolous” or “in bad faith”, and a significant proportion are successful.

Of course, most trade unions opted to pay these fees for their members, but many, many people who weren’t in a union must have been denied access to justice by this ill-conceived policy.  While it is likely that those who applied to the ET will have their fees repaid, at this stage it seems likely that those who couldn’t afford the fee at the time will have missed their opportunity, but it remains to be seen if any pragmatism will be shown in that respect.

 

I’d be interested to know your thoughts on the issues raised in this article, so please leave a comment or, if you’d like to discuss anything more directly, please contact me at malcolm@strathesk.co.uk or give me a call on 07736068787.

 

Taylor Report on Employment – where now?

 We (OK, a few of us) were on tenterhooks waiting for the publication of the Taylor Report into employment practices in the UK, but will it make things clearer or further muddy the waters?

Uber, Deliveroo and Pimlico Plumbers have all been answering legal questions about the legitimacy of a business model that sees them, and other companies, claiming the people work for them are self-employed, so they don’t have to pay Employers’ National Insurance, pension, holidays, sick leave, etc., as their competitors do.  At the outset, Taylor commented that there were areas into which he wasn’t tasked to delve (tax & National Insurance, for example), so it hasn’t, perhaps, been the free and open review that had been called for by many.

There are, however, several aspects that are unlikely to go down well with factions of the Conservative government.  Speaking in May, Taylor said:

“As we encourage people to vote . . . to inform themselves of issues, to volunteer in their community, is it defensible to say that for eight or more hours a day they should accept being ignored, denied information, treated as mere cogs in a machine?”

That could easily be interpreted as a call to reverse moves by the Cameron Government to apply cumulative restrictions to the ability of trade unions to provide that voice.  It could also be that Theresa May’s surprise decision to announce in November:

“…we will shortly publish our plans to reform corporate governance, including … proposals to ensure the voice of employees is heard in the boardroom.” 

might actually come to fruition, though there has been precious little mention of the radical reforms of employment law mentioned in the run-up to the general election.

However, it also suggests that implementation of the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004 (ICER) hasn’t had the impact that it could and should have had.  Certainly, many trade union activists viewed ICER with suspicion, partly because merely informing and consulting can achieve relatively little without scope for negotiation. Similarly, some employers saw it as a way to prevent unions from getting access to their workplace.  However, those opinions have been changing over time, as demonstrated by the TUC’s “Democracy in the Workplace” report from 2014.  There is considerable evidence that employers that actively engage with their staff are more successful than those that don’t:

“Happy and productive people equals growth” (ACAS)

Many were calling for a simplification of the categories, preventing confusion over whether people are employees, workers or self-employed: instead, Taylor seems to be recommending that a further category is introduced, that of “Dependent Contractor”, something more than self-employed, clearly less than a worker, but that is presumably intended to level the playing field.

Quite how the Government will react to the findings is, frankly, anyone’s guess, especially with the level of distraction coming from Brexit, May’s increasingly slender majority, rumoured challenges for the Tory leadership (and, hence, the job of Prime Minister) and Labour apparently surging ahead of the Conservatives for the first time since the General Election, it’ll be a real surprise if they turn to this as a matter of urgency.  But it is the response of Government to these findings that will determine whether or not they make a positive difference for employers and those they employ.

Instead, attention will again be drawn to Uber’s fortunes in the Employment Appeals Tribunal in September.

From where I’m sitting, one answer is in the hands of every employer; improve your working relationship with your staff and, in turn, make the business more productive and more profitable.  That’s an area where I would certainly like to help.

I’d be interested to know your thoughts on the issues raised in this article, so please leave a comment or, if you’d like to discuss anything more directly, please contact me at malcolm@strathesk.co.uk or give me a call on 07736068787.

Trade Unions face big new fines

Trade Unions face big new fines

“The number of working days lost are at historically low levels when looking at the long-run monthly time series back to the 1930s.”

Sneaking past the radar, under cover of Brexit, the Government is running a number of consultations, including ones around the Trade Union Act 2016 and Corporate Governance. The Corporate Governance review deadline has passed, so the gathered information is now being collated and interpreted, but other elements are still in play. The consultation that caught my eye was consultation on the Certification Officer’s enforcement powers. This will introduce significantly tighter rules on the election for senior positions, vetting of candidates and the management of political funds, with unions facing fines of up to £20,000 if they breach those rules.

As is often the case, there’s a stick for when things go wrong, but no carrot to encourage a more positive approach to be deployed. The consultation in process doesn’t seem to be leveling the playing field so much as presenting another set of hurdles for unions to jump in order to be effective in representing the voices of their members.

Only last November Theresa May stated “…we will shortly publish our plans to reform corporate governance, including … proposals to ensure the voice of employees is heard in the boardroom.” at the CBI Conference. She backtracked pretty quickly, and the concept that staff have a valid (essential?) voice in the successful governance of businesses and charities was diluted in the document that was published, but it was still there. There is, therefore, an opportunity for employers to provide a channel for that voice.

And all of this comes at a time when strikes are at close to their recorded low – to quote from the Office of National Statistics report UK Labour Market: Mar 2017:

“The number of working days lost are at historically low levels when looking at the long-run monthly time series back to the 1930s.”

Yet, while CEOs across the land still proclaim their staff to be their biggest asset, most still decline to draw on staff knowledge of the business, the problems it faces and many possible solutions.

I’d be interested to know your thoughts on this subject, so please leave a comment, but if you’d like to discuss this topic more directly please contact me at malcolm@strathesk.co.uk or give me a call on 07736068787.