NEWS & ANALYSIS FMJ.CO.UK
LEGAL VIEW
6 MAY 2021
UK BUSINESSES PREPARE TO SHED SUPPLIERS
THAT DO NOT LIVE UP TO THEIR SOCIAL VALUES
UK business leaders are increasingly turning their
backs on suppliers who fail to align with their social
values, according to new research from Sodexo.
The survey, commissioned to mark the launch of
Sodexo’s Social Impact Pledge 2021, highlights the
profound e„ ect the pandemic has had on procurement
decisions, with the majority of respondents agreeing
that the events of the last year had made it more
important to consider environmental and diversity policies when selecting suppliers.
The research shows that, while UK businesses are understandably still placing a
greater emphasis on factors such as cost, financial stability and cyber security at the
procurement stage, social values are increasingly featuring in the decision-making
process. Ninety-two per cent of those polled said they now vet suppliers on their social
values and impact, and 75 per cent warn they would be put o„ by a prospective supplier
that did not publish information about their social values.
There is clearly, however, some cynicism around social value with almost threequarters
(73 per cent) of the 250 UK business leaders polled agreeing or strongly agreeing
that businesses o‰ en have a social value policy in place but don’t necessarily follow it.
This demonstrates the importance of transparent social impact accounting – evidencing
and reporting on achievements.
Encouragingly, a strong proportion of business leaders who responded to the survey
made it clear that they are prepared to o„ er their suppliers support to help them improve
their standing and become more closely aligned with their own social values.
POST-COVID-19 WORK ENVIRONMENT
REQUIRES A ‘NEW DEAL’ BETWEEN
EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES
Employment contracts and HR policies will need to be overhauled to create a “new
deal” for employers and employees reflecting changed ways of working, global
consultancy Advanced Workplace Associates (AWA) has found.
According to AWA new “working together agreements” will have to be drawn up
to reflect that for a large part of the time workers will not be going into an o ice to
do their work.
A new report by AWA “The new deal – the post COVID-19 contract between
employees and employers” concludes:
• For many people, government guidance alone will not be enough to get them
back to traveling to o ices in city centre locations;
• Organisations will need to develop “build back better” change and engagement
programmes to address employee confidence, negotiate new working
arrangements and demonstrate to their employees that o ice attendance and
travel are safe;
• Many employment contracts and HR policies will need to be overhauled to
recognise the new normal hybrid world as most contracts refer to “the o ice” as
the place of work;
• Where organisations wish to transition to more flexible working models, leaders
at all levels will need to facilitate conversations with their employees to identify
and agree new models of working for the team that blend individual needs and
desires with business needs and priorities.
AWA also found that the human brain’s natural pre-occupation is to maintain our
social and physical safety and many people will take time to accept that the risk of
commuting to the o ice is greater than the value of physical attendance. Factors
that may influence the perception of risk include age, current state of health,
ethnicity, personality, personal circumstances, feelings of wellness and work
experiences during the pandemic.
For younger workers, the draw of social interaction coupled with a lower
mortality risk may well encourage an early return. In all AWA’s studies, working
with organisations as diverse as Legal Practices and Not for Profit organisations,
younger workers are seeking roughly the same levels of flexibility as their more
mature counterparts, contrary to popular belief.
You can access the report here https://bit.ly/331RrM9
EMPLOYEES’ RIGHTS
By Karen Holden, Solicitor and
CEO of A City Law Firm
With many employees working from home,
we’ve seen many positive sides such as
fl exibility and remote working, but it has also meant working
at strange hours, working around juggling a family and
often working longer hours to accommodate the needs of
the employer. With this comes the additional stress, mental
illness, pressure as well as capacity and performance issues
that concern the employer and have an impact on employees.
What is considered reasonable in terms of overtime? What
are the employees’ rights to refuse? What compromise, if any,
can the parties reach?
Talk it out
First and foremost, we would always suggest that an employer
and employee have a conversation, set out each other’s needs,
concerns and see if a compromise can be reached amicably,
documented and monitored. Communication is key, a dialogue
and transparency will usually help overcome most concerns.
Know employment terms
An employment contract and the employers staff handbook,
if there is one, should describe any restrictions placed upon
employees, whether they opted out of the Working Time
Regulations or agreed overtime, what processes are in place for
fl exible working and if necessary, what the grievance process
is.
Working time regulations
In terms of request for overtime an employee may have opted
out of the protection of the Working Time Regulations which
prevent them working more than 48 hours a week. If they
have opted out an employer can request additional hours paid/
unpaid as per those terms. If the employee wishes to withdraw
opting out of this protection they must serve notice in line
with their contract and are then able to reject future overtime
requests. If overtime is clear in the contract or they have opted
out and are being asked to work overtime in line with these
provisions they have no legal basis to refuse.
Health concerns & discrimination
If an employee is concerned that they are being discriminated
against, has concerns about health or a disability, then they
should raise these issues with the employer as they may have
protection under the Equality Act. But again, communication
is key as the employer cannot reduce hours if they’re unaware
of any potential health issues or concerns. If the employee is
treated discriminatory or reasonable adjustments are not made
for a disability, for example, they will have protection and have
the right to issue a grievance or even consider constructive
dismissal.
Overtime hours
However, regardless of what a contract stipulates or whether
they’ve opted out employees cannot be forced to work 24
hours, seven days a week. The law sees working over and
above 48 hours unlawful. If an employee voluntarily works
above this and has opted out, then the hours must not exceed
such that they will be paid less than the minimum wage. Not
off ering suffi cient lawful breaks is not permitted and overall
anything above 60 hrs would be questionable since employees
are entitled to 20 minutes break for every six hours worked.
There should be 11 hours between working days and at least
24hrs every week provided or 48hrs every fortnight. There are
exceptions to the rules, but this generally applies.
If the hours and demands of work causes a person’s health
to suff er or they are being asked to carry out more work that is
reasonably practical, then they must communicate this to the
employer and issue a grievance if necessary.
/331RrM9
