• Employment law update
  • Time off for union representatives - new code of practice
  • Time off for training - a new right
  • Time off - extra bank holiday
  • Whistleblowing details to be passed on
  • Draft Blacklisting Regulations
  • National Minimum Wage and migrant workers
  • Data protection - fines for breaches
  • Equality Bill - guidance documents
  • Pensions - what's in a name?
  • Agency Worker Regulations - more details
  • Additional paternity leave and pay
  • Some interesting cases
    • Holidays - losing them if not taken by the end of the holiday year
    • Discipline - right to legal representation at internal hearings
    • Discrimination - dress codes - requirement for men to cut their hair
    • Discrimination - sex - IVF Treatment
    • Nationality and jurisdiction of the UK courts
    • TUPE - the transfer of collective agreements
• Health and safety news
  • Fit notes to replace sick notes
  • Risk assessments for pregnant workers
  • Drink and smoking
  • Compulsory eye tests for drivers
• New on the website
• And finally....
  • The end of the recession?
  • Huge increase in serious fraud
• BusinessHR HRCare services
• This month's hot topic

The revised ACAS code of practice on time off for union representatives is now in force.

Under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, union representatives have a statutory right to 'reasonable' time off during working hours - with pay - to perform trade union duties (including accompanying workers at disciplinary and grievance hearings) and to undertake relevant trade union training. Time off for union activities (as opposed to duties) does not have to be paid.

The revised code has been updated to provide further guidance on the provision of cover when union representatives take time off, payment for time off, and the responsibilities of line managers and union representatives in ensuring time off arrangements are effective.

The Code operates in a similar way to other ACAS Codes - ie it is not a legal requirement, but employers cannot afford to ignore it as tribunals will use it as a benchmark for judging reasonableness.

For further details on working with unions, see our guide: /docs/guides/unions.html

The Code can be downloaded from the ACAS website: www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=2391

As from 6 April 2010, employees of businesses with 250 or more employees will have the right to request time off (unpaid) for training or study. The new right will apply to virtually all employees who have completed six months' service, and the training or study should improve both their effectiveness at work and the performance of their employer's business.

The procedure for requesting time off is very similar to that for requesting flexible working, and employers will be required to consider all requests seriously. However, they may refuse a request for specified business reasons (which also closely mirror those for flexible working) or if, in their view, the training would not improve the employee's effectiveness at work and/or the performance of their business.

It is planned that the new right will be extended to all employees, regardless of the size of their employer, from April 2011. Unlike flexible working, we do expect the take up to be quite low - since the right is to unpaid time off, the employer does not have to fund the training, and many employees who are looking for career progression join organisations which already offer formal, structured development.

Our hot topic for this month will cover this topic in detail and we will shortly add a new page to our website which outlines the statutory procedure in full. We are also preparing a suite of letters and a form to help you with the process.

This is some way off, but fitted in with the time off theme of this newsletter so far!

The government has announced that we will have an extra bank holiday to mark the Queen's Diamond Jubilee in 2012. The late May Bank Holiday will be moved to Monday 4 June, and an extra bank holiday awarded on Tuesday 5 June, giving most of us who don't work on bank/public holidays a long weekend!

As far as we know, there are no plans to increase the right to more than the legal minimum 28 days per year, so whilst we have two years to plan for this, it's worth putting the dates in diaries now and, if you are reviewing your holiday procedures or contracts anyway, considering how you will manage this. It's not a normal occurrence that the number of bank/public holidays changes (the last time was the millennium) and there are some possibly unforeseen consequences.

• If your contracts give your staff xx number of days' holiday entitlement "plus all bank/public holidays" or "plus bank/public holidays" then your staff will get the benefit of an additional paid day's leave, under their existing contract.
• If your contracts give your staff xx number of days' holiday entitlement "plus eight bank/public holidays" (and commonly lists these) then there is no entitlement to an additional paid day's leave.
• If your contracts state (as we advise) "you are entitled to xx days per year inclusive of bank/public holidays" and you close on the bank holiday, then your staff will have to use a day's leave from their current overall entitlement to cover this - it is up to you whether you award them an extra day's pay to compensate. You may need to check what your contracts say in terms of reserving holidays - as the number of days required to be reserved to cover periods of closure may be insufficient to cover this. In which case you will have to give sufficient notice of the closure (the Working Time Regulations would require two days' notice for one day's holiday, but we would recommend more than this!)
• If your contracts are the latter and you open on the bank holiday, then again you will need to choose whether you give compensatory time off to your staff or not.
• Finally, whatever your contractual arrangements, do consider both the cost but also the effect on staff morale of not awarding the additional day's paid holiday!

See also our guide to managing holidays: /docs/guides/holidays.html

Employment tribunals will have the power to pass on whistle-blowing allegations, raised in ET1 claim forms, to the relevant regulatory authorities (eg the Serious Fraud Office, Health & Safety Executive or Financial Service Authority) in respect of claims (or amended claims) arising on or after 6 April 2010.

The standard claim form (ET1) will be amended with an additional tick box to say whether the claim includes allegations of a protected disclosure. If this box is ticked, the claimant is then asked whether he/she wishes the tribunal to refer the allegations on. If both boxes are ticked, and the tribunal identifies a protected disclosure, the information will be passed on to one or more relevant authorities on a prescribed list (referred to as "prescribed persons"). The tribunal will confirm in writing to both the claimant and the defendant that a relevant authority has been contacted and a copy of the ET1 (or relevant extracts) disclosed.

A worker's right to report alleged protected disclosures under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, and not to be subjected to any detriment for doing so, remain as before. The tribunal also will not take a view on the merits of an allegation, nor what should follow. However, it would seem likely that more cases will be referred to regulatory authorities than previously and therefore having a whistleblowing policy, and communicating this to your staff, is even more important.

For an overview on whistleblowing see: /docs/legal/whistleblowing.html If you do not already have a whistleblowing policy in place, we would strongly recommend that you implement one - see our template policy: /docs/pol/whistleblowing/index.html

Some more regulations! The Government has published a draft version of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010.

These regulations will prohibit the compilation, use, sale or supply of blacklists containing details of trade union members and activists, where the purpose of such lists is to discriminate against workers on grounds of trade union membership or activities. Workers who are refused employment or employment agency services, and who believe they have been discriminated against because of a blacklist being used, or who consider they have been subjected to a detriment for a reason related to a blacklist, can bring an employment tribunal claim.

The regulations set out minimum (£5000) and maximum (£65,300) compensation, and claimants may apply for damages, including for injury to feelings, and for orders restraining or preventing the compilation, use, sale or supply of the blacklist.

The draft regulations can be downloaded from the OPSI website - see www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2010/draft/pdf/ukdsi_9780111490457_en.pdf

The government is still aiming for the regulations to come into force on 6 April 2010.

A further tightening up on those who flout the NMW rules!

As from last month (January 2010), the HMRC has a new "Dynamic Response Team" (the name of which we're sure has caused numerous comments!). This team will concentrate its efforts particularly on those areas where employers use migrant labour to undercut competitors by paying below the minimum wage and will work with other Government departments and Local Authorities to ensure action is taken, including civil and criminal prosecutions where appropriate. Of the £3.5 million of wage arrears paid to workers since April 2009, more than £640,000 was in the hospitality sector - so if you work in this sector, take particular care to ensure that you comply with the NMW and be aware of the changes last October which meant that tips, gratuities and service charges do not count towards the NMW.

For further guidance on the NMW see: /docs/legal/minimumwage.html

New regulations which are also expected to take effect from 6 April 2010 will give the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) the power to impose penalties of up to £500,000 on data controllers who deliberately or knowingly seriously breach the Data Protection Act.

The power will apply if a data controller has seriously contravened one or more of the eight data protection principles, and where the breach is likely to cause "substantial damage" or "substantial distress". The breach has to be deliberate or foreseeable, ie the data controller must have known, or ought to have known, that there was a risk and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it. "Substantial damage" or "substantial distress" may include injury to feelings, harm or anxiety as well as financial loss.

Breaches of security are the most obvious risk, but other examples include inaccurate job references caused by using out of date data, or failure to offer a job due to information obtained from an unlawful source.

The penalty will apply to all sectors: public, private, charitable and voluntary, however sector, size, financial and other resources of the business will be taken into account when deciding on the size of the penalty.

A copy of the ICO's guidance is on their website - see www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/pressreleases/2010/penalties_guidance_120110.pdf
For further guidance on the data protection act, see /docs/legal/dataprotection.html
For guidelines on document retention see: /docs/legal/documents.html

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is currently consulting on the draft codes of practice drawn up for the Equality Bill, which will explain the new legislation so it can be applied consistently by lower courts and tribunals. There are three separate consultations, one for each of the three Codes, which are: employment; equal pay and services; public functions and associations. The consultations on the codes of practice will close on Friday 2 April 2010. See: www.equalityhumanrights.com/

The EHRC is also consulting on three draft guidance documents, aimed at helping employers and education providers. These three documents cover employment; services, public functions and associations; and education. Consultation will close on 16 April 2010.

We seem to recall that the aim of the Equality Bill was to bring all discrimination legislation into one place and streamline everything......

In the meantime, the Bill itself struggles on through the parliamentary process:

• The government has been defeated for the third time over provisions which the churches claim would restrict their ability to deny jobs to gay people and transsexuals. Religious organisations are currently able to rule out some applicants on conscientious grounds, but the government had attempted to amend this, so that exemptions applied only to those whose jobs "wholly or mainly" involved taking part in services or rituals, or explaining the doctrines of religion.
• An amendment tabled in the House of Lords would remove enforced retirement from the new equality legislation. If passed, the Bill would need to go back to the House of Commons for agreement before passing to Royal Assent.

The government still aims to implement the Bill in October 2010.

The Personal Accounts Delivery Authority (PADA) has announced that the new national workplace pension scheme, due to be introduced from October 2012 onwards, will be known as "National Employment Savings Trust" (NEST). The logo shows the word "nest" on top of an egg, suggesting the scheme provides a "nest egg".

The scheme is to be phased in over five years: businesses with more than 120,000 employees will have to pay into a pension scheme from October 2012; the smallest employers have until 2016 to comply, with start-up small business given additional time. Employer contributions will also be phased in - from 1% in 2012, to 2% in October 2016, and to the full 3% by 2017. Auto-enrolment will begin as planned in October 2012 and will be fully phased in by October 2017.

For further information see our page on pensions and the National Employment Savings Trust: /docs/legal/personalaccounts.html

The Government has responded to the second round of consultation on Agency Worker Regulations and a revised and final version of the Regulations is expected shortly. The Regulations will come into force on 1 October 2011 (as the Agency Workers Regulations 2010).

The main provisions of the Regulations are now well known, and have been covered in our newsletters on numerous occasions over the past couple of years: in summary, after a twelve week qualifying period an agency worker will be entitled to the same basic working and employment conditions, including pay, as if he/she had been directly employed, or engaged as a worker, by the hirer on day one of the assignment. "Working and employment conditions" include pay, overtime payments, shift allowances, unsocial hours payments, holiday entitlement, rest breaks, restrictions on night work, bonuses which depend on individual performance such as piece-work production target bonuses and personal performance bonuses, luncheon vouchers and access to canteen, transport or childcare facilities. They exclude company sick pay, redundancy pay, long-service or loyalty bonuses or financial participation schemes (eg shares/options/profit sharing schemes) and pension contributions.

The following points are worth noting:

• Agency workers include not only those supplied by a temporary work agency, but also those engaged by umbrella companies or supplied through intermediaries, to work under the supervision of, as well as the direction of, of the hirer on a temporary basis. The genuinely self-employed are excluded, whether they operate as sole traders, through limited liability companies or self-employed partnerships.
• Agencies will have the right to pay the agency worker in lieu of untaken holiday, over and above statutory minimum leave, at the end of each assignment. This should make it easier in situations where the workers are assigned to a number of hirers which could all operate different holiday entitlements.
• Agency workers will only be entitled to receive bonuses where these reflect the amount or quality of work done by the individual worker (such as piece work or personal performance bonuses) and where such bonus is available to a comparable employee or worker. Discretionary bonuses and those related to corporate performance are excluded, as are rewards for loyalty or employee incentive schemes. Vouchers or stamps with a monetary value, such as luncheon or transport vouchers, must be available to agency workers after 12 weeks. Childcare voucher schemes may be included.
• The 12 weeks' qualifying service is twelve continuous calendar weeks' service in the same role for the same hirer - but it does not have to be via the same agency so if a worker does the same role for a different agency which results in him/her doing that role for an unbroken period of 12 weeks, he/she will qualify for "equal treatment".
• Continuity of service is only broken after six weeks of absence or where the worker takes up a "substantively different" role. Absences owing to ill-health and pregnancy will not count towards the break, nor will absences due to workplace closure, industrial action and lock outs. Where hirers deliberately try to avoid qualifying service, eg by rotating workers between different roles or by offering 11 week assignments punctuated by seven week breaks, a tribunal will be able to make an additional award of up to £5,000 per employee for a successful claim. As a further deterrent, in low-value cases there will be a minimum award of two weeks' pay.
• Where a pregnant worker is moved to a different assignment to protect her from any risks to her health and safety, or that of her unborn child, she will retain her continuity in terms of qualifying service (the move will not act as a break) and will be entitled to no less favourable terms and conditions for the duration of the original assignment.
• The agency worker must have the same access as a comparable worker at the same establishment to information about any vacancies.
• The Regulations no longer allow for workforce or collective agreements to provide local variation of the equal treatment regime.

The final Regulations and promised guidance which will accompany them are awaited. The Government has indicated it will also establish a working group to review the practical implications of this legislation.

For more guidance on agency workers, see: /docs/legal/agency.html

The new right for fathers to take some of the mothers maternity leave will be introduced for parents of children due on or after 3 April 2011, but the entitlement actually comes into force earlier - as from 6 April 2010.

The Government has now published the final Regulations - see www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2010/draft/ukdsi_9780111491157_en_1

Holidays - losing them if not taken by the end of the holiday year

The provisions about holiday in the Working Time Regulations used to be quite clear - holiday that is accrued but untaken at the end of the holiday year is lost and cannot be carried forward. Then we were told that those on maternity or adoption leave who cannot take their holiday can carry it forward, then "additional statutory holiday" (which can be carried forward) was added to the basic four week minimum, then we learned that those who are on long-term sick can carry their holiday forward, and finally, those who are sick when on pre-booked holiday can convert their holiday to sick pay and take it at a later stage.

So it's all getting a bit confusing. Thank goodness that the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) therefore came down on the side of common sense in Lyons v Mitie Security Ltd.

Mr Lyons' contract of employment required him to give 4 weeks' notice of any request for annual leave. The company's holiday year ended on 31 March, and at the beginning of March, Mr Lyons realised that he still had 6 days' holiday left and asked to take this on 6 March 2008. The Company refused his request as he had not given the 4 weeks' notice required by his contract. The new holiday year started on 1 April, and the Company did not allow carry over of holidays, so he was told he would lose the outstanding holiday. Mr Lyons resigned and lodged a claim for unpaid holiday pay, amongst other claims. He claimed that his right to paid annual leave under the Working Time Regulations took precedence over any contractual obligation he may have in relation to notice, and his employer should have granted his holiday.

The EAT thought not. They said that the requirement for notice of holiday requests contained within the contract of employment was binding on Mr Lyons. Provided the employer did not apply the notice provision in an "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious way", then there may be occasions, such as this, where an employee is unable to use up all of his annual leave before the end of a leave year and therefore loses it.

Many employers, especially if given a reasonable request and there are no problems in granting the request, would allow the holiday - but the employee has no right to change the rules, and the onus is therefore on the employee to ensure that he/she books his/her holiday in time!

For more guidance on managing holiday, see: /docs/guides/holidays.html

Discipline - right to legal representation at internal hearings

Employees have the right to be accompanied by either a colleague or a trade union official at disciplinary hearings and grievance meetings and most employers' disciplinary procedures simply reflect this.

A couple of recent cases suggested that, where a dismissal may result in the employee not being able to work in his/her chosen profession anywhere else in the future, legal representation should be allowed if requested. The Court of Appeal has now looked at this, in R (on application of G) v The Governors of X School and Y City Council, and given further guidance.

In this case, the claimant was a music assistant in a primary school. He was dismissed following a complaint that he had kissed and had sexual contact with a 15 year old boy who was a work experience student at the school. The school refused his repeated requests to bring a lawyer to the disciplinary hearings. He complained that this was a contravention of his rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights - the right to a "fair and public hearing".

The Court of Appeal found that his dismissal would automatically result in a referral to the ISA under the barred list procedure, and felt that that procedure would be "irretrievably prejudiced" by the school's decision. Consequently, since the disciplinary proceedings are "a determinant of the claimant's right to practise his profession" they felt that Article 6 DID apply. Legal representation, if requested, should have been allowed at both the disciplinary and appeal hearings.

This is consistent with an earlier case, Kulkarni v Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, in which the Court of Appeal ruled that doctors and dentists employed by NHS bodies in England are entitled to legal representation at disciplinary hearings. That ruling further suggested that employees of other public sector organisations should also be allowed legal representation in disciplinary proceedings if they are facing allegations that, if proven, could result in the individual losing the right to practise their chosen profession.

So it is not the case that all employees have a right to legal representation at all disciplinary hearings. But where a dismissal could prevent someone from working in their chosen profession in the future, employers should proceed with caution if legal representation is requested.

Discrimination - dress codes - requirement for men to cut their hair

In Dansie v Metropolitan Police, the dress code stated that "hair must be neat, not allowed to cover the ears ... and worn above the collar". Mr Dansie claimed that a requirement to cut his hair (when he had previously tied it back in a bun) amounted to both sex discrimination and harassment. The original tribunal decided that this was not discrimination or harassment simply because a female employee would not have been required to cut her hair, and that the overall dress code was equally balanced between the sexes.

The EAT confirmed that an employer's dress code should be considered as a whole, and not simply analysed on a single issue basis. Does it require employees to display an equivalent level of smartness overall? (This is consistent with previous cases such as Smith v Safeway Plc and DWP v Thompson.)

They felt that the Metropolitan Police's dress code was, overall, equally balanced between the sexes. There was no less favourable treatment, because a female recruit who failed to comply with the code would have been treated in the same way.

If you are wanting to implement a dress policy, take a look at our template: /docs/pol/dresscode/index.html

Discrimination - sex - IVF Treatment

In Sahota v The Home Office and Pipkin, the EAT looked again at whether someone undergoing IVF should be protected against discrimination on the grounds of sex or pregnancy.

In the previous case of Mayr v Backerei und Konditorei Gerhard Flocker OHG, the European Court of Justice had said that protection under the Pregnant Workers' Directive would only commence when implantation of an ovum had occurred; however, at an advanced stage of IVF treatment (between the retrieval of the ova and the immediate transfer of the fertilised ova into the uterus) an employee would be protected under the Equal Treatment Directive. It would be direct sex discrimination to subject a female employee to a detriment because she was undergoing that particular stage of IVF treatment.

The EAT's guidance was that:

• when a worker is absent as a result of a gender-specific illness, even one attributable to pregnancy or confinement, less favourable treatment on account of that absence is not sex discrimination if a male worker would have been treated in the same way
• during the initial period of IVF treatment, ie anything leading up to the follicular puncture, there is no protection
• during the period between the follicular puncture, when the ova are retrieved from the ovary for fertilisation in vitro, and the subsequent transfer of the in vitro fertilised ova into the uterus, it will constitute sex discrimination to treat a woman less favourably simply because she is receiving that treatment
• once pregnant, discrimination against a woman on the grounds of her pregnancy is direct sex discrimination and there is no need to identify a male comparator.

Nationality and jurisdiction of the UK courts

In BA v Mak, the EAT ruled that the nationality of female cabin crew did not stop them from being covered by UK employment law.

The claimants were Chinese nationals employed by BA and resident in Hong Kong. They completed 28 'flight cycles' between Hong Kong and London each year, had duties upon arrival and prior to departure from Great Britain, and had training in Great Britain and debriefing sessions on landing.

In considering whether an employee works 'wholly or partly in Great Britain', there is no specific proportion of time spent working in Great Britain which simply decides the issue, and the nature of the job needs to be looked at in detail.

The EAT decided that the activities carried out in Britain and the training were an integral part of the job. The cabin crew therefore worked partly in Great Britain, so their claim can proceed here. These staff were automatically dismissed upon reaching the age of 45 and so are bringing discrimination claims.

TUPE - the transfer of collective agreements

A bit of relief for those who may be taking on contracts involving staff previously employed by a local authority.

The Court of Appeal has reversed the EAT's decision that any future liability arising from previous contractual collective bargaining arrangements passes over to the incoming contractor.

In Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure Limited, a collective agreement in the contracts of employment provided for collective bargaining for the employees who transferred, as well as those left behind. The EAT had ruled that any pay increases agreed under the collective agreement for the employees left behind should also apply to the transferred employees. The latter now worked for a new employer that had had no input into the annual pay negotiations, did not recognise the unions involved and was not a party to the collective agreement.

The Court of Appeal referred to a recent European Court of Justice ruling where the ECJ had decided that the Acquired Rights Directive (from which TUPE is derived) only intended the transferee to be bound by a collective agreement in force at the time of the transfer. So liabilities arising from a collective agreement incorporated into the contract of employment, which transfer under TUPE, will cease when the collective agreement is terminated, expires or is replaced by a new collective agreement. The Directive aims only to safeguard the rights and obligations of employees in force on the day of the transfer.

So the Court of Appeal said that Parkwood was no longer bound by the public sector collective agreement, which had been revised after the transfer. This decision overrules previous UK case law. The position now is that TUPE only requires an employer to apply the terms and pay agreed at the time of the transfer, not anything agreed by the previous employer after the transfer has taken place.

For more information on TUPE, see /docs/legal/tupe.html

As from 6 April 2010, GP's sick notes will be replaced by 'fit notes'. The GP will indicate whether the employee is either:

• 'unfit for work' or
• 'may be fit for work taking account of the following advice'.

Doctors may give guidance as to whether the employee may benefit from, for example:

• a phased return to work
• altered hours
• amended duties
• workplace adaptations.

The aim of the new notes is to help get those off sick back to work. Do note that a failure to consider the GP's suggestions seriously could result in a claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

The Department for Work and Pensions says it will be issuing guidance for doctors and for employers on the new medical statement.

In O'Neill v Buckinghamshire County Council, the EAT has said that there is no automatic entitlement to a risk assessment if there is no evidence that the work involves any risk to the expectant mother. For an employer to have to conduct a risk assessment for a pregnant worker, the following preconditions must be met:

• the employee must have notified her employer that she is pregnant in writing;
• the work must be of a kind which could involve a risk of harm or danger to the health and safety of a new/expectant mother or her baby; and
• the risk must arise from either processes, working conditions or physical, biological or chemical agents in the workplace.

Neither the Pregnant Workers Directive nor the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require a meeting with the worker as part of the risk assessment. But the worker must be provided with comprehensive and relevant information on any identified risks to her health and safety.

Failure to carry out a risk assessment, where there is an obligation to do so, may be unlawful sex discrimination. Whether or not a workplace 'could' involve a risk will of course need to be assessed. So, despite the EAT's ruling, it is still recommended that employers carry out risk assessments for all new and expectant mothers to avoid potential litigation or resentment arising.

See our guide to /docs/hasaw/pregnant.html and also the HSE guide: www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg163.pdf

The Office for National Statistics has reported that adults in households classified as "managerial and professional" drink more alcohol than "routine and manual" households - a weekly average of 13.8 units compared with 10.6 units.

Smoking however has reduced amongst managers and professionals (14% of adults) but not in routine and manual households (29%).

See www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/ghs0110.pdf for more details.

We have just added a new page to our website on alcohol and drug misuse in the workplace - see /docs/hasaw/alcohol.html

Some way off, but just to alert you that that EU legislation (passed back in 2006) requiring professional drivers to take more frequent eye tests will take effect by 2013.

Currently employees who are VDU users may request a free eye test and the provision of any glasses required for their VDU use, but there is no specific provision for commercial drivers. To be legally fit to drive, all motorists must be able to read an old style number plate (pre-2001) from a distance of 20.5m, or a new number plate from 20m. It is an offence not to wear corrective lenses/glasses if they are needed and motorists caught without them could get three penalty points and a fine of up to £1,000. The problem is that many people do not realise that their sight has deteriorated and is no longer legal.

Under the new legislation, commercial licence holders will have to have eye tests every five years, and holders of private licences will have to be tested every 10 to 15 years. The legislation will come into force in 2011, but each EU member state has until 2013 to implement this.

In the meantime, whilst it is not a legal requirement yet to enforce such eye tests, do bear in mind that as an employer, you are vicariously liable for acts committed by your employees in the course of their employment - so anyone injured in an accident caused by an employee whose vision was not legally compliant could bring a claim against you. If you run commercial fleets or have on the road sales teams or others who do a substantial amount of driving, you may wish, in addition to checking their driving licences, to also check that staff are fit to drive by asking them to have an eye test.

For more guidance on driving on business, see our health and safety overview: /docs/hasaw/drivers.html

We've added a new page on alcohol and drug misuse in the workplace - see /docs/hasaw/alcohol.html , a guide to director's responsibilities - see /docs/legal/director.html and we've updated the holiday record forms for those who have an April 2010-2011 holiday year and also for Jan-December 2011, see /docs/lf/holiday/index.html

Whilst the papers are saying that we are at the end of the recession, it may still take years to recover. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) predicts that unemployment will reach 2.8m this summer, and that the jobs market will only show signs of recovery in the second half of 2010.

They are calling for a national minimum wage freeze for younger workers, saying this would help to protect their jobs, as well as the removal of the default retirement age, the extension of the job guarantee scheme to long-term unemployed people aged over 50, and an efficiency review of all quangos.

And separate research by the CIPD also shows that employee engagement levels have hit an all-time low. Its quarterly Employee Outlook survey found a drop in job satisfaction rating to 35 (from 48 last summer). The rating is the percentage of employees agreeing with statements in the survey minus the percentage disagreeing. Younger workers (18-24) are particularly unhappy, with a rating of 5 (44 in summer 2009). Those aged 55-64 are the most satisfied, with a rating of 55 (same level as previously).

Employers' focus is now likely to turn to restoring previous levels of engagement and commitment amongst their survivors - many of whom may have struggled with job insecurity; pay freezes, cuts or lay offs; reduced benefits plus heavier workloads as a result of fewer staff.

According to KPMG, there was a huge increase in serious employee fraud in 2009, with 123 cases of serious fraud by employees and managers and a total loss of £567 million. Crimes by managers accounted for £335 million of losses (£129m in 2008), and employees committed £232 million of fraud (£100 million in 2008).

KPMG attributed the increase to both weak security and recessionary pressures. They said that the recession may have tempted more people with debts to commit fraud, but that reductions in budgets for HR and security departments had resulted in fewer security controls for tasks such as checking references.

Since they estimate the average loss in a serious fraud case at £4-5 million, it is worth considering your procedures such as updated checks when someone changes role and ensuring that full references are taken up prior to someone joining you. Also check original proof of qualifications and driving licence (if appropriate) at the same time as checking the right to work in the UK. And for those handling cash, or in positions of financial trust, you may wish to insist on a credit reference check.

Read our guide to dealing with theft and fraud - /docs/guides/fraud.html and encourage your employees to report any wrong doing by reminding them of your whistleblowing policy and also any code on business ethics. See our policies page for template policies which you can adapt to suit: /docs/TPcontract.html

Why not take a look at our HRCare range of services which offer employers of all sizes the opportunity, for a fixed price, to minimise the financial risk of employing staff. To learn more visit our new website at: www.businesshr.com

This month's hot topic will cover the new right to request time off for training.

Note: hot topics are only sent to subscribers. If you receive our newsletters only and are interested in subscribing to our wider services, please take a look at /intro/index.html