International Workplace blog

What health and safety qualifications does my team need?

by Claire Deacon — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 13:32:05 GMT

Competence - including appropriate knowledge, skills and experience - is key to assuring compliance with general health and safety in an organisation.

The psychological impact of refuse work

IOSH — Thu, 23 Apr 2026 21:49:00 GMT

Refuse collection has and always will be an essential part of society. In this blog, IOSH’s Eloise Byrne explores the societal perceptions and potential stigma associated with refuse work and shares how occupational safety and health (OSH) professionals can influence change.

“Because we take out people’s rubbish, sometimes they feel like they can talk to us like rubbish,” said Beth Whittaker, Chief of Human Resources at refuse firm Veolia.

Refuse collection is a problem in developing countries, typically associated with rapid urbanisation and population growth exceeding the capacity of the current infrastructure. It's also an issue in developed countries because of the abuse some workers face.

Refuse collectors face stereotypes and negative attitudes, which can impact their wellbeing. The quality of refuse collection rests with the wellbeing of the workforce, so it’s important to consider both the psychological and physical impact of work.

It is imperative that refuse collection remains both socially and environmentally sustainable for the future.

Here we share case studies from three different countries. They highlight the psychological impact of refuse work and the role that OSH professionals can play. While we’re focusing on refuse collectors, the information can be applied to workers in any industry.

Hanoi – symptoms of stress
Much of the research and content so far has focused on refuse workers’ physical health. Musculoskeletal problems, fatigue, cuts from sharps, slipping and falling as well as risk of injury from traffic accidents contribute to a high-risk working environment. These risks often sit alongside long working hours.
However, little has been considered regarding the psychological effects. Nearly 15% of refuse collectors reported stress symptoms as part of a study carried out in Hanoi, Vietnam. Frequent exposure to extreme temperatures, night shifts, insufficient monthly income and exposure to hot or flammable objects were among commonly cited reasons.

Exposure to extreme temperatures, when combined with high levels of physical manual labour, can be a physical factor contributing to mental fatigue.

Jakarta – supplying the right tools
A UK television series, The toughest place to be a bin man, highlighted the role of refuse collectors. Based in Jakarta, Philippines, the BBC documentary shocked the three million viewers who tuned in by highlighting the poor living conditions and tough work, with refuse collectors often walking barefoot for seven days a week.

Since then, improvements have been made. Workers have been provided with personal protective equipment (PPE), tools and first aid kits. This been proven to have a positive psychological impact.
According to research by the CPD (Continuing Professional Development) Certification Service, providing the correct tools needed to get a job done safely leads to increased job satisfaction and improved employee wellbeing. This is because workers feel cared for by the organisation and are equipped to carry out their role. It has a knock-on effect of increased productivity.

London – StreetKind scheme
Refuse collectors in the UK are often subjected to abuse from members of the public. The number of violent attacks on refuse workers has more than doubled from 2021-22 reveals Veolia, an outsourcing firm that handles refuse for seven million households across the country.

Refuse collectors are often approached by angry residents asking them to take rubbish that is not compliant with company policy. This has intensified to threats of violence and even physical attacks.

Mr Major, a refuse collector working in North London, has spoken about an incident in which his crew were threatened with death by a resident for refusing to take away his recycling bin. The resident followed the refuse collection crew to their vehicle, attempting to break in while threatening to “stab us to death”.

Although the crew managed to escape, Mr Major talks of the terrible “emotional impact” of the attack. Worrying that “when I stepped out of my front door, maybe I’m not getting home in one piece. Maybe someone will pull a knife out.” He speaks of being frustrated, sleepless and angry.

Due to the rise in abuse, Veolia has launched StreetKind to help protect its teams. As part of the campaign, Veolia has committed to pursue more prosecutions for abuse against its staff. It also includes a training programme to support staff to defuse situations and understand how and when to involve police.

OSH key takeaways
As an OSH professional, here are the provisions you can put in place to prevent psychological impacts on people who work in these or similar conditions.

Risk assessment. OSH professionals can perform psychosocial risk assessments to identify potential stressors and psychological hazards in the workplace. Understand the unique challenges faced by workers and tailor assessments accordingly. OSH professionals can highlight coping mechanisms refuse workers need to develop to navigate the unique challenges of their profession. Resilience, a sense of purpose and access to support systems can all contribute to mental wellbeing.
Tools. Providing the right tools and equipment to carry out a job safely is another way in which OSH professionals can support workers’ psychological welfare.
Policy. OSH professionals can also influence policy that draws attention to workers' welfare from a psychological standpoint and ensure this has measurable outcomes and is checked for success. Involve refuse workers in the decision-making process regarding their working conditions. A participatory approach can empower workers and contribute to a sense of control over their environment.
Culture. Foster a workplace culture that values and supports mental health. Encourage open communication, destigmatise seeking help, and promote a sense of community and collaboration among workers. Conduct regular check-ins with workers and use surveys to gauge their mental wellbeing. This ongoing feedback loop can help identify emerging issues and assess the effectiveness of implemented initiatives.

Do you know the employment rights of employees working abroad?

by Kelly Mansfield , — Tue, 27 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT

Do you know the employment rights of employees working abroad?

We are increasingly in a mobile world where staff move from one country to another as part of their normal working life; where international assignments are becoming the ‘norm’; and where employers need to be aware of which legislation and jurisdictions cover these staff on such appointments.

Since the express territorial limits of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were repealed in 1999, employers have faced uncertainty on the question of what confirms whether staff working abroad have the right to claim unfair dismissal under UK legislation. There have been a number of cases on this point, but never a truly straight forward outcome. Let’s review the cases on this point.

First we had the case of Lawson v. Serco Ltd in 2006 which was heard jointly with two other Tribunal claims. In this specific case, Lawson was domiciled in England and employed by a company based in the UK. He worked as a security operator on Ascension Island in the South Atlantic. In each of the three cases, the question was the same: did unfair dismissal rights apply notwithstanding the foreign elements?

Although the Employment Tribunal service thought otherwise, when the case of Lawson reached the House of Lords, the focus turned to how the contract was being operated at the time of dismissal, rather than actually whether the individual was employed in Great Britain.

As such, the House of Lords identified the following broad categories of protected employees:

Standard cases - where the employee ordinarily works in Great Britain at the time of dismissal.
Peripatetic employees (such as pilots) - where the employee moves between jurisdictions but has their base in the UK at the time of dismissal.
Certain expatriate employees, for example those posted abroad by a British employer or those with an "equally strong connection" with Great Britain. Examples here might include foreign correspondents working abroad on behalf of British newspapers, or employees working abroad in embassies.

Seemingly quite clear guidance from the House of Lords back in 2006. However, Tribunals quickly realised that not all, and in fact very few, cases fell neatly into one of those three categories. So, what do you do then?

Back in 2011, Duncombe v. Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, such a matter arose. Mr Duncombe was a teacher employed over nine years of successive fixed term contracts, by the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families to work in a European School in Germany. When his employment was terminated at the end of the last fixed term contract, he claimed unfair dismissal under UK law.

Again, the Tribunal service struggled with the previous guidance under Serco, and found he was not protected under UK jurisdiction. However, under the Supreme Court, Mr Duncombe was deemed to come under category 3 as defined by the House of Lords in the Serco case. This being the case because, amongst other factors, not only was his employer based in Great Britain, but his employer was also the Government of Great Britain, thereby providing him with the closest connection with Great Britain that any employer could have!

Next we had the case of Ravat v. Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd in 2012, and again this went all the way to the Supreme Court. In this case, Mr Ravat worked for Halliburton Ltd, as the Libyan Accounts Manager, where he reported to the Operations Manager based in Cairo. He was made redundant and claimed unfair dismissal under UK law. Halliburton argued they had no jurisdiction, because Mr Ravat worked in Libya. He worked on a rotational basis, spending 28 days there, and 28 days back at home in Preston with all travel paid by the company. During his time at home, he only checked the odd email, but he had the same pay, tax and pension structure as UK employees, and had been advised that that UK employment law would still govern the relationship.

The Supreme Court found that Mr Ravat was entitled to claim unfair dismissal because of a "sufficiently strong connection with Great Britain" as it had been established that he had a substantial connection with Great Britain and a stronger connection with Great Britain than with Libya. In this instance, the Court decided that it was not necessary for Mr Ravat to fit into one of the Lawson v. Serco categories as they are only examples of a wider principle.

For UK based employers, and the Tribunal service, this clearly threw more question marks over the guidance from Serco as the claimant clearly did not have to fit into one of the three categories. In each case, employers and Courts alike would need to analyse the particular facts and circumstances.

Earlier this month, another case came to light - Lodge v. Dignity & Choice In Dying and another (2014). The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether an Australian citizen, Mrs Lodge, who was employed by a British company and worked remotely in Australia for family reasons, was protected against unfair dismissal and/or whistleblowing detriment under UK legislation.

In the first instance, the Employment Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claimant's claims, as she was not truly an 'expatriate employee'. She had not been posted to Australia by the employer, but had gone to reside and work from there for her own personal reasons, accommodated by the company. Several aspects were considered, but given that she had chosen to move to Australia; she paid tax and pension payments in accordance to the schemes there; and she never worked or returned to the UK, directed the Employment Tribunal to consider the case outside UK jurisdiction.

However, on appeal, the EAT accepted that although she did not fall squarely within the 'expatriate employee' definition, all of her work in Australia was for the benefit of her employer's London operation; her employer had also permitted her to work remotely in Australia and therefore this was materially no different from an employee being posted to work abroad by the employer. Therefore she did not lose her right to bring her claims in the UK, as a 'virtual employee' in Australia.

So what does this mean now?

Do we have any clarity on which employees posted, or choosing to live and work for a UK organisation abroad, are covered by the Employment Rights Act 1996, and perhaps more crucially, who are not?

Essentially no! It would seem that if an employee is working remotely, but for the benefit of the UK based business, they will be protected by the Employment Rights Act 1996, particularly where they can show that connection to Great Britain. Therefore, just because the employee is not physically based in the UK, does not mean employers can disregard the risks.

Therefore, drafting any international contracts need careful consideration, and set out below are just some of the factors to bear in mind:

The type of employment arrangement – is this a temporary assignment for a limited period, or an international posting for months/years? If so, do you second someone; or recruit locally, possibly through a ‘partner’ or ‘host’ organisation?
Choice of contract law and submission to jurisdiction – this covers the point in the contract of which legal system will govern the agreement. Clearly a UK based employee working abroad would prefer UK law; the employer however is likely to favour local law to minimise claim risk. This should be agreed at the outset and written into the contract; although worth noting that ‘agreed’ choice of law may be overridden by international conventions!
Depending on where the international assignment is based, it is likely that mandatory local laws will have some effect on the contract, such as mandatory notice periods; working time provisions; local discrimination legislation. The reverse is also true of workers from abroad working in the UK. Therefore, any contracts given to British workers employed overseas must not conflict with mandatory local laws, and employers should ensure contracts are checked out by practicing solicitors in the jurisdiction concerned.
Personal tax and social security implications at the local country also need to be considered.

Careful drafting of such arrangements is certainly the key, and if in doubt, please contact us to discuss further on +44 (0) 871 777 8881.

How many employers pay their staff the Living Wage?

by Kelly Mansfield , — Mon, 28 Apr 2025 01:47:32 GMT

How many employers pay their staff the Living Wage?

The Living Wage is a subject constantly in the news, and, at least according to the media and social networking sites, it is evident more and more employers are getting on board. As we approach Living Wage Week 2014, we take a look at what the Living Wage is, the benefits, figures relating to the number of employers paying their staff the Living Wage, and the factors that might influence organisations to do so.

Living Wage Week takes place this year from 2-8 November and is recognised as a UK-wide celebration of the Living Wage and Living Wage Employers.

The Living Wage Foundation states that it is a great opportunity to raise awareness of the Living Wage and the Living Wage Employer Mark, while the new UK and London Living Wage rates for 2014-15 will be announced on Monday 3 November.

The UK rate will be announced simultaneously in cities around the UK whilst the London rate will be announced by Mayor of London, Boris Johnson.

Information about the announcement and calculation of the rate can be found here, while The Living Wage Foundation and Principal Partners of the campaign are set to launch a report on the scale of low pay and the impact of the Living Wage.

What is the Living Wage?

An hourly rate set independently and updated annually.
The Living Wage is calculated according to the basic cost of living in the UK.
Employers choose to pay the Living Wage on a voluntary basis.
The Living Wage enjoys cross-party support, with public backing from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
Paying the Living Wage is good for business, good for the individual and good for society.

A salient point is that employers choose to pay it on a voluntary basis. It is not currently a compulsory measure for employers to have in place and therefore may not be appreciated by all bosses.

However, the second annual State of the Nation Report, which was published and laid before Parliament last week from the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission (SMCP), warns that Britain is on the brink of becoming a permanently divided nation and recommends that the UK should commit to becoming a Living Wage nation by 2025 at the latest. With reports such as this in the spotlight, it won’t be long before all employers are asked to consider increasing wages to Living Wage rates.

The UK currently has 912 companies with a Living Wage accreditation, awarded to those who pay their entire workforce the Living Wage, or to those committed to implementing it in the future.

Reluctance to pay?

According to the Living Wage Foundation, the Living Wage is good for business, stating that an independent study examining the business benefits of implementing a Living Wage policy in London found that more than 80% of employers believe that the Living Wage had enhanced the quality of the work of their staff, while absenteeism had fallen by approximately 25%.

Furthermore, its research discovered that two-thirds of employers reported a significant impact on recruitment and retention within their organisation, while 70% of employers felt that the Living Wage had increased consumer awareness of their organisation’s commitment to be an ethical employer.

Above and beyond that, the Foundation notes that it is also good for families. It says:

“The Living Wage affords people the opportunity to provide for themselves and their families. 75% of employees reported increases in work quality as a result of receiving the Living Wage.

“50% of employees felt that the Living Wage had made them more willing to implement changes in their working practices; enabled them to require fewer concessions to effect change; and made them more likely to adopt changes more quickly.”

Nestle showing the way

In June of this year, Nestle became the first UK manufacturer to agree to pay its 800 contractors the Living Wage from 2017, meaning suppliers will earn the same as the 8,000 permanent staff who are already paid it.

In a statement at the time of the announcement, Nestle UK & Ireland Chief Executive, Fiona Kendrick, said the firm was proud of the decision:

"As a major UK employer, we know that this is the right thing to do. Not only does it benefit our employees but also the communities they live and work in.”

Case study

Earlier this month, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) published a new report featuring case studies focusing on strategic facilities management, and one of the six studies looked at the Living Wage as a key area for professionalism in facilities management.

Authored by International Workplace, the case study features Guy Stallard, Head of Facilities at KPMG, who discusses the impact paying the Living Wage has had on the business.

The case studies can be found here.

The Living Wage Foundation praises the case study, stating that it supports the work KPMG is currently doing with its Service Providers and specifically those linked to all areas of facilities management. It adds that it now has a growing list of Service Providers from the FM industry engaged in the Foundation’s Recognition Programme.

Will all employers end up paying?

With an abundance of vocal public support and various studies explaining the numerous benefits on offer for employers who pay the Living Wage, it is easy to see why organisations are vowing to cough up. But, what about the businesses that aren’t on board – will anything persuade them to pay the extra money?

Public scrutiny could be the biggest factor to influence companies to increase their pay. Just last week Celtic Football Club came under intense pressure from campaigners, trade unions and politicians to increase the pay of their staff after the Board refused to introduce a Living Wage.

Will the negative media attention pressurise firms into paying? No employer will appreciate being plastered over the internet for failing to pay their staff adequately, and in recent weeks there have been a number of articles castigating firms for not paying employees the Living Wage.

It remains to be seen what impact this will have and of course what impact a Living Wage Week will have on the number of organisations who elect to pay.

If you have any views on this much debated topic, please find us on Twitter and LinkedIn to continue the discussion.

Enhancing wellbeing at work through effective internal communication

by Jo Sutherland, — Mon, 28 Apr 2025 01:47:32 GMT

The success of organisations hinges not just on what they communicate, but on how effectively they collaborate across departments to create an engaging and supportive environment for their most valuable asset – their people.

Effective collaboration between HR and L&D professionals and the marketing communications team, for example, is essential for delivering an outstanding employee experience. This is especially true as organisations adapt to new ways of working and the new skills required in the face of technological advancement.

Ensuring clear and consistent messaging about health, wellbeing and professional development initiatives requires alignment between those who are experts in all things ‘people and culture’ and those who are specialists in communications.

When HR works in tandem with the comms department, they are more likely to create engaging strategies that resonate with employees, ultimately enhancing satisfaction and supporting the development of internal progression pathways.

The importance of internal communication

Research by Magenta Associates has revealed a pivotal shift in communications priorities since the pandemic. Businesses are now focusing more on communicating effectively with employees than ever before. While internal communication is not a new concept, it has become increasingly complex, particularly with the rise of hybrid work models.

In a survey of 2,000 employees, 53% did not describe their employer as a good communicator. Alarmingly, despite 83% of business leaders agreeing that employee communication is more important now than it was prior to March 2020, 35% admitted they lack the expertise and support needed in this area.

The biggest communication challenges organisations face include effectively conveying workplace changes, health and wellbeing initiatives and training programmes, and fostering collaboration among dispersed teams. Without effective internal communication, managers may struggle to lead, and employees may lose sight of their culture and shared purpose. In short, words matter. Precision matters. Engagement matters.

Crafting a comprehensive B2E communications strategy

Business-to-employee (B2E) communications – how a company interacts with its employees – should be a fundamental part of any organisational strategy. Unlike business-to-business (B2B) or business-to-consumer (B2C) strategies, very few companies have a well-defined B2E communications plan.

This lack of focus can lead to mixed messaging and confusion, especially when launching new initiatives or programmes that impact employees. The key is to ensure that messages are not only clear but also engaging, fostering a two-way communication process that encourages employee feedback and participation, and leads to better decision making when it comes to determining which health, safety and wellbeing training would be of most value.

Develop targeted B2E strategies

It is vital to communicate the benefits in a targeted way to maximise the visibility and appeal of health and wellbeing initiatives. Let’s take the IOSH Managing Occupational Health and Wellbeing eLearning course as an example. This is designed for managers and supervisors across all sectors. It equips them with the tools and techniques necessary to enhance health and wellbeing in their organisations. While participants won’t become health and wellbeing experts overnight, they will learn to care genuinely about their colleagues. Now, some managers will relish the opportunity to bolster their soft skills, while others may consider the course as a distraction from their day-to-day work or, worse still, a burden.

Employers therefore need to create a narrative that resonates with both sides, giving the doubters a reason to get excited. A study by Gallup found that teams led by managers who are engaged in their employees’ wellbeing are 22% more productive than those whose managers are disengaged.

Other research suggests that organisations that prioritise health and wellbeing are not only more likely to retain talent but also experience heightened productivity, innovation and competitiveness, while fewer hours are lost to ill health and reduced presenteeism. This may provide a more compelling case to a manager who is less interested in developing their soft skills, but more interested in results.

A culture of continuous learning

The golden rule of any effective communications strategy is to make it accessible and simple. Coordinating coherent messaging ensures clarity and enables employees to engage meaningfully with the content.

Leverage various communication channels to engage as many people as possible. Internal newsletters, intranets and social media platforms can serve as valuable tools for promoting health and wellbeing programmes and recruiting health and wellness champions.

Implementing feedback loops is also a crucial component of effective communications when it comes to refining health and wellbeing programmes based on employee responses and success stories. By regularly soliciting feedback, organisations can adapt their initiatives to better meet the needs of their employees, thereby enhancing overall satisfaction and engagement.

A better employee experience

Enhancing wellbeing at work through effective internal communication requires a concerted effort to align HR objectives with marketing strategies. By leveraging various communication channels, implementing feedback loops, and fostering a culture of open dialogue, organisations can create a more supportive environment that champions health, safety and wellbeing for everyone.

Jo Sutherland is the managing director of Magenta Associates, and a Good Business campaigner.

Mental health at work: what is a ‘reasonable adjustment’?

by Kelly Mansfield , — Mon, 28 Apr 2025 01:47:32 GMT

Mental health at work: what is a ‘reasonable adjustment’?

Opening up about mental health is the topic of the moment, with the Royal Family backing campaigns to get people talking to each other about their problems. In the workplace, that conversation between employer and employee is significant and the employee needs to feel fully supported moving on from there.

Once that dialogue has been opened, taking action to make any necessary adjustments to support the employee to cope and recover is vital.

“These steps are generally quite small and involve simple adjustments to someone’s job role or extra support from their manager,” says Mind in its guide ‘How to support staff who are experiencing a mental health problem’. “Often the necessary change is one of attitude, expectations or communication – rather than a major change or significant cost. However, effective steps tend to be very individual. For this reason, it’s vital you have a meaningful conversation with your employee about their needs and really listen to them…

“In some cases, people may be unable to identify appropriate adjustments themselves so you may need to try some out. The best approach here is to decide on positive action and regularly monitor and review this to check it’s working, further tweaking the approach if necessary.”

Potential workplace adjustments (temporary or permanent) identified by Mind include:

Flexible hours or change to start/finish time. For shift workers not working nights or splitting up their days off to break up the working week can also help.
Change of workspace – e.g. quieter, more/ less busy, dividing screens.
Working from home (although it’s important to have regular phone catch ups so people remain connected and don’t feel isolated).
Changes to break times.
Provision of quiet rooms.
Light-box or seat with more natural light for someone with seasonal depression.
Return-to-work policies e.g. phased return – reduced hours gradually building up.
Relaxing absence rules and limits for those with disability-related sickness absence.
Agreement to give an employee leave at short notice and time off for appointments related to their mental health, such as therapy and counselling.
Reallocation of some tasks or changes to people’s job description and duties.
Redeployment to a more suitable role.
Training and support to apply for vacancies and secondments in other departments.

If an employee requires extra support, Mind suggests:

Increased supervision or support from manager. For example, some people can take on too much so may need their manager to monitor their workload to prevent this and ensure they’re working sensible hours.
Extra training, coaching or mentoring.
Extra help with managing and negotiating workload.
More positive and constructive feedback.
Debriefing sessions after difficult calls, customers or tasks.
Mentor or ‘buddy’ systems (formal or informal).
Mediation can help if there are difficulties between colleagues.
Mental health support group or disability network group.
Self-referral to internal support available.
Identifying a ‘safe space’ in the workplace where the person can have some time out, contact their buddy or other sources of support and access self-help.
Provision of self-help information and sharing approaches and adjustments that have proven effective at supporting others.
Encourage people to work on building up their resilience and doing things that support good mental health such as exercise, meditation or eating healthily.
Encourage people to be more aware of their mental state and reflect on what factors affect it in the workplace.
Provide regular opportunities to discuss, review and reflect on people’s positive achievements – this can help people to build up positive self-esteem and develop skills to better manage their triggers for poor mental health.

Making reasonable adjustments for an employee who is at a major disadvantage compared to others who do not have a mental health problem is a duty under The Equality Act. Employers are also subject to a variety of legal obligations in respect of their employees’ health and wellbeing. These obligations arise from health and safety legislation, the breach of which is a criminal offence, and also from the law of negligence, contract and discrimination. Injury to an employee’s mental health is treated by the law in the same way as injury to physical health.

Mind has recently launched its Workplace Wellbeing Index , which is designed to help employers find out where they are doing well and where they could improve their approach to mental health in the workplace.

Are employers keeping up with equality?

by Alex Davies, — Mon, 28 Apr 2025 01:47:32 GMT

Are employers keeping up with equality?

It seems like a week cannot pass without a report of harassment or inappropriate behaviour by high-profile figures or within well-known businesses and brands. This is despite legislation that has been designed to prevent harassment and discrimination being in place since the 1970s. Greater awareness of this legislation through the news and social media appears to have given individuals the confidence and impetus to call out bad behaviour. Are employers up to speed though and keeping pace with the changes in society and what equality now means in the workplace?

The Equality Act is key

The Equality Act came into force on 1 October 2010, bringing together over 116 separate pieces of legislation into one single Act. Combined, they provide a legal framework that seeks to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for everyone.

The nine main pieces of legislation that have merged are:

the Equal Pay Act 1970;
the Sex Discrimination Act 1975;
the Race Relations Act 1976;
the Disability Discrimination Act 1995;
the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003;
the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003;
the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006;
the Equality Act 2006, Part 2; and
the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.

The Act is designed to protect individuals from discrimination on the grounds of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

What have employers done to ensure an equal and diverse workplace?

Many employers have a tailored handbook setting out their policies and these should cover anti-discrimination, anti-harassment, diversity and inclusion, and parental leave but these policies may have been in place for many years and need updating. Other employers may also provide training to staff, but most do not update their policies or provide detailed training. Both of which are required as a minimum to successfully defend discrimination claims by the company. Many employers though still don’t even have a policy in place.

Issues often arise where there is inconsistency in the way employers apply policies or behave generally. This is something that employers need to do if they want to truly embed a culture of equality and diversity in their workplace.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has issued guidance for both employers and employees and ACAS has also produced some very useful guides to help employers.

Where are we now?

Nine years on from when the Equality Act 2010 came into force, no one could have predicted the speed of change in society, perhaps fuelled by the rise of social media platforms and the ability to publicise issues to a wider audience and see an immediate impact when other users respond. We saw in 2017/18 how quickly a simple hashtag – #MeToo – became a global phenomenon. This heightened society’s collective awareness of discrimination to an unprecedented level and shows no sign of slowing down.

More recently, there’s also been significant exposure in the media about the gender pay gap, as well as mandatory gender pay gap reporting. This has been accompanied by stories of high-profile public figures protesting unequal pay at the BBC amongst other well-known organisations adding more fuel to the fire.

Following the Weinstein scandal and #MeToo we’re also seeing more and more stories emerge of inappropriate behaviour in the workplace being called out. How employers handle this is under greater scrutiny than ever before. The use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in these high-profile cases to potentially cover up wrong-doing has led to new guidance being issued to solicitors on the use of NDAs in the context of employment law.

Finally, as we approach the second deadline for the submission of pay gap data, employers need to be able to account for any discrepancies between last year’s report and the one they make this year. These reports will face further scrutiny in the media and by the employees involved in them.

Looking to the future

Commentators on this recognise that the law can only go so far in creating a safe workplace and that the best way to create a positive, safe and unintimidating workplace culture is for businesses to not only have anti-harassment policies on paper but also to take steps to ensure the culture of organisation supports a zero tolerance of such inappropriate behaviour. This starts with training your staff on the policies and managers consistently applying these policies.

It is important to remember that equality and diversity does not only just apply to gender and pay though – there are nine protected characteristics that are covered by legislation. Recognition of the issues facing the LGBTQ community at work is increasing, and we’re expecting employers to face more issues where they fail to account of this within their equality and diversity policies.

The charity Stonewall recently named the top LGBTQIA employers for inclusivity in the workplace. For the most part these are larger employers, with the budget and resources to make the necessary changes to their businesses, to cater for a diverse workforce. For smaller businesses though, there are still simple steps you can take to ensure your business remains inclusive for all – ensuring you have policies and processes in your handbook that are current and up to date and ensuring they are fit for purpose and applying them consistently when issues arise.

As the recent Ted Baker ‘hugging’ case shows, simply having a policy is not enough, it needs to be applied consistently in order to be effective.

What’s clear is that employees are becoming much more vocal and feel less restrained in calling out practices they disagree with and employers need to be prepared to deal with this.

Employers should consider the following cultural changes to ensure their policies are effective and not just paying lip service to the legislation:

clear policies setting out what is acceptable practice and what is not tolerated;
keeping equality policies up to date with newly published guidance;
training staff on your policies;
encouraging staff to make others aware when behaviour is inappropriate and having an effective complaint procedure; and
creating a culture that fosters good standards of behaviour and accountability.

Equality hasn’t changed, but society’s expectations have. In the increasingly litigious world we’re now in, employers have to be much more proactive in addressing issues when they arise and ideally in preventing them in the first instance. Being clear in your expectations from the outset and consistent in enforcing them is critical. When serious issues do arise, we recommend you seek expert legal advice to ensure that you are able to successfully manage the situation and minimise the negative impact for your business.

Pam Loch is Managing Director of the Loch Associates Group and Managing Partner of Loch Employment Law. To contact Pam, visit www.lochassociates.co.uk or call 0203 6675 400.

Asperger’s Syndrome – making adjustments to recruitment processes

by Kelly Mansfield , — Mon, 28 Apr 2025 01:47:32 GMT

Asperger’s Syndrome – making adjustments to recruitment processes

A recent case considered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has highlighted the need for employers to be flexible when it comes to recruitment practice, emphasising that one size should definitely not be made to fit all.

Asperger’s Syndrome is a lifelong development disorder which falls within the autism spectrum. Individuals with Asperger’s can often have difficulty in understanding and interpreting other people’s non-verbal behaviour, motivations and expectations and can find social interaction confusing.

The effect of this is that some employers unfamiliar with the condition may be cautious about recruiting someone with Asperger’s. But the reality is while some personal qualities and characteristics may come across differently in the case of those affected, they are often very high functioning, extremely intelligent and capable candidates who can offer valuable skills and attributes to your workforce. So, what would you need to consider when employing someone with Asperger’s?

From a simple risk management perspective, employers need to be aware that an individual with Asperger’s would very likely be protected by the Equality Act 2010. That legislation creates an obligation on an employer, service provider or educational establishment to consider what reasonable adjustments may be necessary to the way in which they operate, so as to ensure that a disabled person is not placed at a disadvantage.

This issue of adjustments was brought into sharp focus in Government Legal Service v. Brookes, which considered whether a job applicant with Asperger’s Syndrome was discriminated against by being required to sit a psychometric test. The short answer was yes, but the case raised some interesting points about what adjustments need to be considered to accommodate disabled job applicants. In this case, the candidate contacted the employer asking that adjustments were made to the test. She was told an alternative assessment was not available but went ahead anyway, only to fail.

The EAT considered that the ‘provision, criterion or practice’ (PCP) of requiring all applicants take and pass the test placed the applicant at a particular disadvantage compared to other candidates. Her claim of unlawful discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments succeeded. The EAT acknowledged that whilst the GLS needed to test the core competency of candidates to make effective decisions, a psychometric test was not the only way to achieve this.

What adjustments could have been made to the recruitment process?

Like any other candidate, individuals with Asperger’s Syndrome have a variety of useful skills that can be utilised in the workplace. But they are often disadvantaged when it comes to securing and keeping a job because of difficulties with social communication and interaction, especially when faced with a lack of understanding by peers or customers.

So as not to deter individuals with Asperger’s, employers should ensure job adverts and job descriptions are written in plain English and specify only what is actually required in the role. At interview stage, it is essential to ask closed questions about an individual’s specific experiences and skills, rather than open-ended questions asking them to tell you something about themselves. It may even be that an interview in the traditional sense is not going to get the best from an individual and an adjustment to the recruitment process may include allowing a companion to attend the interview or even arranging a short workplace trial. This would then allow the individual to perform the role and allow a business to assess suitability in a more practical way.

What adjustments could be made to the role and the workplace?

During the course of employment, it is important to consider what adjustments may be needed to a role so that an employee with a particular disability is supported, given equal access to opportunities and is assessed in the most appropriate way for them. Adjustments will need to be reasonable and this will depend on the work involved and the resources available to the business, but in the case of Asperger’s may include:

Ensuring appropriate structure and support is given to help employees prioritise activities like organising tasks into a timetable for the working day.
Providing training and monitoring which may include informal mentoring by a manager. Depending on the employee, they may also need reassurance in stressful situations which could be provided by colleagues who can help alleviate any stress that the employee may feel.
Clarifying the expectations of the job and the duties they are required to undertake but also the unwritten rules of the workplace that may be more difficult for someone with Asperger Syndrome to pick up.
Making sure that instructions are concise and specific. For example, it may be necessary to change the way an instruction is communicated from 'Please give everybody a copy of this', to 'Please make three photocopies of this, and give one each to Dave, John and Mark'.
Regularly reviewing performance and providing specific and sensitive feedback in meetings. This may need to be more frequent than for other employees.
Adapting the physical workplace such as screens around a desk, noise cancelling headphones or simply the position of their desk in the office.

An employer should however always be guided by the individual employee in relation to any adjustments to the role or to the physical workplace as not all employees with Asperger’s require the same level or type of support. In making your workforce more aware of the condition, either through training or the employee volunteering details of their condition and how it affects them at work and discussing this openly with their colleagues, this will ensure better understanding amongst staff, resulting in a diverse, multi-skilled and successful team that is tailored perfectly for your business.

*Chris Phillips is a Partner of niche employment law practice, Loch Employment Law.

Loch Employment Law is part of the Loch Associates Group also incorporating HR Advise Me, Loch Mediation and Loch Health. For more information please visit www.lochassociatesgroup.co.uk or email info@lochassociatesgroup.co.uk

The importance of being fair

by Kelly Mansfield , — Mon, 28 Apr 2025 01:47:32 GMT

The importance of being fair

The observance of World Values Day in October has raised greater awareness of the importance of good values – not just as individuals but as teams and managers in the workplace. The event, supported by key industry organisations such as the CIPD and the Wellbeing at Work Event, also held this month, highlights that values play a significant role in our lives, including helping us to ‘make better choices in life, develop healthy patterns of behaviour, and form and maintain meaningful personal relationships. With values we know where we are going, we take responsibility for our actions, we are motivated and empowered.’

Kelly Mansfield

When applying this to the workplace, World Values Day organisers claim that ‘Managers and leaders will discover that mobilising their team to join together to examine their shared values and to put them into action is a powerful way for organisations to strengthen vital relationships. Involve your colleagues, customers, suppliers and all your other stakeholders.’

Shared values – ensuring that everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet – can also lead to greater productivity. In line with the focus on values, ACAS has developed seven levers, which provide a practical framework for workplaces to help them become more productive, including trust, employee voice and rights and responsibilities. This month looks at fairness.

‘Everybody wants to feel valued and that they are treated in a consistent and even-handed way,’ ACAS states, going on to advise that unfair treatment or the perception of unfairness can lead to:

a toxic workplace culture where bullying and other negative behaviours go unchecked; and
high absence levels due to workplace stress or accusations of discrimination.

Whereas, ACAS says, tackling head-on the challenges posed by perceived unfairness can:

promote diversity and respect;
improve levels of motivation and engagement;
deal directly with stress caused by high workloads or lack of management support;
promote a better understanding of individuals 'in the round' and help improve work life balance; and
ensure fair pay, especially as businesses start to grow.

Of course, being fair in the workplace isn’t just about possessing good values – it’s also a legal necessity under legislation such as the Equality Act 2010, which prohibits all forms of discrimination, including (to name just a few) disability discrimination, equal pay, religion or belief and harassment.

CDM 2015: Are you “competent” to work in construction?

by Kate Gardner, — Mon, 28 Apr 2025 01:47:32 GMT

CDM 2015: Are you “competent” to work in construction?

6 October sees the implementation of every aspect of CDM 2015 to construction in the UK, without exception. The underlying emphasis by HSE in its goal to secure health and safety in construction is to ensure everyone at every level, and whatever the task, is “competent”.

Under previous construction regulations there were “stages” for assessing competence and many organisations exist offering some form of membership to achieve compliance, primarily amongst contractors. Although such organisations may yet provide a form of assurance of compliance, in the event of enforcement only a Court can decide if the duties and requirements of CDM 2015 regarding competence have been met. And now all other dutyholders, particularly designers, principal designers and principal contractors, must be competent to comply with CDM 2015.

Paragraph 7 in “Managing health and safety in construction”, the Legal Guidance, L153, published by HSE to accompany the regulations states;

“Anyone responsible for appointing designers (including principal designers) or contractors (including principal contractors) to work on a project must ensure that those appointed have the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out the work in a way that secures health and safety. If those appointed are an organisation, they must also have the appropriate organisational capability. Those making the appointments must establish that those they appoint have these qualities before appointing them. Similarly, any designers or contractors seeking appointment as individuals must ensure they have the necessary skills, knowledge and experience.” Training for health and safety is an important element in acquiring knowledge and can be provided by International Workplace Limited for all Dutyholders under CDM 2015.

Advice on how to go about assessing competence is given also in L153;

“When appointing a designer or a contractor, sensible and proportionate enquiries should be made about their organisational capability to carry out the work. Only enquiries for information that will address the anticipated risks and capability of the supplier should be made – excessive or duplicated paperwork should be avoided because it can distract attention from the practical management of risks. Those making appointments will find the standard health and safety questions in PAS 91:2013 (Publicly Available Specification) Construction related procurement. Prequalification questionnaires3 a useful aid. Using PAS 91 standard questions is one way of helping to assess organisational capability.”

PAS 91 has provided the foundation for all the “membership” schemes presently available and it would seem reasonable, in light of the HSE Guidance, to suggest construction Clients might prefer to establish their own criteria for competence based on using PAS 91 for pre-qualification. L153 will enhance the status of PAS 91 as the preferred route to establish organisational capability and individual competence above membership of “approved

There is a temporary drawback to this as PAS 91 has not been updated to reflect the changes to Dutyholders and Duties under CDM 2015, particularly the removal of the CDM Co-ordinator role and the introduction of the Principal Designer, in practice the “Health and Safety Co-ordinator for Pre-construction”. Although there is no published information on a revision date this is likely to be quite soon.

In the meantime, Clients could draw on the competent advice they should have under Regulation 7 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, and adapt PAS 91 to cover each of the new Dutyholders in CDM 2015.

International Workplace has partnered with the BIFM to produce a new Guidance Note on the updated CDM Regulations 2015, which was launched in the summer. To download a copy, click here. To ensure that you are up to date with these regulations we are running our popular CDM training workshop on 22 October.