| A1 |
Yes, if your policies allow for that to happen. However, you may wish to try a more compassionate route depending on how serious the illness is. Seek advice.
|
| A2 |
Most definitely yes. Persistent short term absence is a drain on management time and company resources. The employee can be dealt with through 3 avenues, namely, conduct, capability or some other substantial reason. Please seek advice if in doubt.
|
| A3 |
Definitely not. If her performance has not met the required standard and you can factually substantiate that you have spoken to her prior to being aware of her pregnancy, you may have an outlet. Please seek advice.
|
| A4 |
Be aware that staff who do all their work for you abroad may nevertheless enjoy unfair dismissal protection if they are, in practice, based in Britain, or if they are posted abroad by you for the purposes of your British business.
The position may be different if such employees are working for a business conducted in the foreign country with British owners, or that is a separate branch of a British business. They would be unlikely to have unfair dismissal rights.
Remember that unfair dismissal protection only applies to employees in the strict sense. It does not cover 'workers' - such as genuine freelancers, consultants or agency temps - unless they are, in reality, employees.
Employees working overseas may benefit from employment protection legislation in the foreign country anyway. These rights may be significantly wider and provide more generous protection than those of Great Britain. Also, the Lords acknowledged that their decision may mean that some employees are now able to bring claims in Great Britain and elsewhere in respect of the same employment. However, they will not be able to recover compensation in Great Britain for the same losses twice.
The new principle means that the territorial scope of unfair dismissal protection is now closer to that of discrimination claims.
|
| A5 |
More than a quarter of UK workers believe they would become more productive if they were to receive performance-based pay, according to research. A survey of 19,000 workers across 12 European countries, by recruitment firm Kelly Service, found just 14% of UK respondents were on an arrangement where some of their pay was tied to performance targets. This was one of the lowest rates in Europe where the average was 21%.
Of those UK workers not on performance pay, more than a quarter (28%) say they would be more productive if they had their earnings linked to performance outcomes. The survey also revealed that of those UK workers not on performance pay, some 33% of men and 26% of women actually want to move to performance-based remuneration.
Steve Girdler, director of marketing at Kelly Services UK, said it was surprising that some employers seemed reluctant to give workers the opportunity to become more productive through performance-based pay.
"Performance-based incentive schemes can be a win-win situation. The employee benefits from the opportunity to prove their worth and gain an increase in pay, while the employer benefits from increased productivity and a more motivated workforce," he said.
Those countries with the strongest element of performance-based remuneration were Russia (42%), Germany and Switzerland (both 25%), Denmark (24%), Italy (22%) and Norway (21%).
|
