Category Archives: Employer

Hard Work Needn’t Be It’s Own Reward!

GulliverImageThis is an article designed to ensure that all the hard work applied to building your business does not exit with your departing employees!

Even with the most effective engagement strategy, employers will not please all of the people all of the time. For this reason, it is paramount for employers to have strategies in place to protect their business if key employees leave.

There are many ways in which an employer may protect its business, and choosing the most appropriate (which is likely to be a combination of the areas below) will depend on the type of work that is carried out and the industry sector in which the employer operates. Post-termination restrictions and confidentiality clauses are commonly used, but employers should also consider the potential impact on their business of the use of social media including LinkedIn and Facebook.


Post termination restrictions, also known as restrictive covenants, should do what their name indicates; restrict employees’ activities after their employment has ended. Usually, these restrictions are contained in Contracts of Employment and fall into three categories:

  • Non-Solicitation of employees/clients: this essentially means that the employee is agreeing not to contact the employer’s clients (or possibly potential clients) to obtain business from them and/or agreeing not to poach their former colleagues;

  • Non-Dealing: this means that the employee is agreeing not to do business with clients (or possibly potential clients); and

  • Non-Competition: this is the most difficult type to enforce because of its restrictive nature, but in essence means that the employee is agreeing not to work in competition with the employer.

The key point to remember with post-termination restrictions is that there is a general rule that they cannot be enforced because they are contrary to public policy as an unlawful restraint of trade, unless the employer can show that:

  • it has a legitimate interest that it is appropriate to protect (for example, trade connections or confidential information); and

  • the protection sought is no more than is reasonable.

The public policy rule means that it is very important that post-termination restrictions are carefully drafted. To ensure there are strong prospects of enforcement, consideration will need to be given to (amongst many other factors):

  • the seniority of the employee;

  • the length of time the restrictions last for after termination;

  • what is meant by “clients”; and

  • whether there is any limit in terms of location.

Employers should also pull together as much information as possible about the job that the employee carries out and where they fit in the structure of the business to obtain the most accurate advice on suitable post-termination restrictions.

Thought should also be given to garden leave clauses, which can be very effective; such clauses have the effect of taking the employee out of the “marketplace” during their notice period.


Often employers consider information and knowledge to be fundamental to their business and even well-drafted post-termination restrictions will not sufficiently protect this. Such information and knowledge could include a secret recipe or formula, a list of key business contacts and customers, or specialised IT systems and data which, if disclosed to a competitor or to the general public, could cause damage to their business.

Although “trade secrets” can be protected without having a particular clause in the Contract of Employment, most information, although vital to an employer, will not be considered a “trade secret.” For this reason, confidentiality clauses are commonly included in Contracts of Employment.

Advantages of confidentiality clauses include:

  • they are more likely to be enforceable than restrictive covenants; and

  • they can last much longer than post-termination restrictions.

A good confidentiality clause will protect the business both during and after termination of the employee’s employment, and should set out what type of information is considered to be confidential.

We advise that a confidentiality clause is included in all Contracts of Employment, Service Agreements and Consultancy Agreements.


Although a confidentiality clause might include reference to databases being confidential, increasingly often we see problems when a dismissed employee seeks to use a database of contacts that he or she has built for the purposes of their work, using social media tools such as LinkedIn or Facebook.

In the information society, databases are simply modern forms of property. A database is often such a valuable asset that businesses are increasingly looking to exploit them in their own right. Many employees will be engaged in producing databases, whether as their main role, or in adding contacts for the purposes of developing the business.

The general rule is that the employer is the owner of the database if an employee has created a database during the course of his or her employment, but this is a developing area of the law when linked to social media. If an employee has used social media to create a database, it will depend on the circumstances as to whether the employee or the employer is considered to be the owner of the database and what the employee can do in relation to contacts made. For this reason, we recommend:

  • setting out rules about the use of networking accounts and how contacts should be recorded and used. This could be by way of a social media policy and/or in the Contract of Employment; and

  • including a clause setting out details of intellectual property rights in the Contract of Employment.


In summary, to protect their business, employers should:

  1. Get existing Contracts of Employment, Director Service Agreements and Consultancy Agreements reviewed;

  2. Obtain advice on specialist drafting of post-termination restrictions, garden leave, intellectual property and confidentiality clauses; and

  3. Put in place a social media policy and/or contract clause including relating to how contacts made through LinkedIn and Facebook are treated at the end of employment.

Please contact us if you have any queries about how to protect your business, or indeed if you want to find out if you can take advantage of a competitor’s failure to sufficiently protect its business when you want to hire its employees!

Gig Economy?

No FaceThe increase in ‘on demand’ relationships between commercial enterprises and individuals wanting to provide their labour in an informal and flexible way for short-term engagement opportunities poses a significant challenge to employment legislation and Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC).

The emergence of the so called “gig economy” defies traditional definitions of labour relationships as it is based largely around the use of technology platforms, often the mobile phone, to connect suppliers and users.
Prime examples are Uber, Airbnb and City Couriers.

If these engagements can be defined as employer/employee relationships, then current employment and taxation legislation will apply with the inevitable result of increased cost to commercial enterprises and increased protection for those supplying labour. The potential loss of revenue and absence of protection is leading to greater scrutiny of worker relationships in the ‘gig economy’ and in more traditional industries such as logistics, transport and construction where there is a practice of treating labour suppliers as self-employed.

Both Uber and City Couriers have been the subject of successful legal challenges to the self-employed status brought by labourers. There also appears to be an increase in the number of HMRC investigations conducted into employment status. The current uncertainty around a precise definition of “employee” that can be universally adopted by the legislature, commercial enterprises and individuals is certainly a cause for concern. Currently, UK law recognises three broad categories of labour provision; ‘employee’, ‘self-employed’ and ‘worker’ each carrying different rights and obligations

It appears that nowadays one approach that may be adopted by the courts to deal with thorny relationships that defy easy definition is to say, ‘you know it when you see it.’ Arguably such an approach inevitably leads to an increase in cases to determine employment status coming before the courts.

Historically, the courts have endorsed a list of questions, the answers to which assisted in determining whether the person or persons undertaking activities for a business was an employee, a worker or alternatively in business on their own account.

By way of example could an individual send someone else in their place to carry out the work instead of doing it themselves, were they entitled to paid holiday, did they have an opportunity to make a profit or run the risk of making a loss in carrying out the work, and could they turn the work down if it was given or were they legally obliged to do it? The answers to these questions were very often indicative of the type of relationship that existed. It appears that the weight given to these indicators by the courts has lessened if recent decisions are anything to go by. In the meantime, business owners should take heed, the label that the parties attach to the labour supply relationship will carry far less certainty without careful navigation through a number of signposts.

If you engage any labour on a self-employed basis and would like assistance in reviewing your current contractual relationships, contact a member of the team at FG Solicitors on 01604 871143.

Employer Found Not Liable For Work Related Assault

Naughty or niceThe Christmas festivities are now hopefully a distant memory for most of us. That is of course if your Christmas party was not a fertile source of inappropriate, and in some cases, violent behaviour of members of your workforce.

It is settled law that employers can be held liable for the acts of employees carried out in the course of employment, save where an employer is able to show they took all reasonable steps to avoid the act occurring. The principle of holding employers liable for the acts of their employees is known as vicarious liability. By way of example, in the case of Hawley v Luminar Leisure Limited, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court that a nightclub exercised sufficient control over the actions of a doorman supplied to it by a security company, to deem the nightclub his “temporary” employer for the purposes of vicarious liability. The Court of Appeal found that the nightclub had sole vicarious liability and assessed the security company’s liability at nil.

This brings us to the more recent decision of Bellman v Northern Recruitment Limited, here the High Court ruled that an employer was not vicariously liable for a violent assault by its Managing Director on an employee at an impromptu drinking session after its Christmas party. This was because it was an ‘impromptu drink,’ which was not itself a part of the work Christmas party (despite the expectation that some or all of the bill would be met by the company), and because the mere fact that the assault had followed a discussion of work matters did not mean that it was necessarily ‘in the course of employment.’ The Court said that the incident had arisen in the context of ‘entirely voluntary and personal choices’ by those present to engage in a heavy drinking session.

What does this mean?

Employers may be able to escape liability in such circumstances, but it will depend on the facts of a particular case.

What should employers do?

Employers should exercise caution as this decision does not change the law, nor does it establish that post-Christmas party drinks are outside the scope of employment for vicarious liability purposes.

The possibility of inappropriate behaviour at work related social functions is entirely foreseeable and employers should be vigilant and proactive in ensuring that acceptable standards of behaviour are defined and communicated to all employees and workers.

For more information on how to manage the risk of vicarious liability, contact a member of the Employment Team at FG Solicitors on 01604 871143.

Can wilful disobedience of an employers’ instruction ever be justified?

6fnZXAevDtAWTRWV9Js6picIAnd so it was that the final race of the F1 Calendar 2016 brought into sharp focus the controversy between Lewis Hamilton, three times world champion, and his employers Mercedes Benz as a result of the driver refusing to obey instructions to increase his speed during the race.

At first blush, it seems perverse that a racing driver needs to be told to drive faster during a race as adopting a purposive approach, the job is to drive as fast as you can with the aim of winning races.

In this particular case however, Hamilton was already winning the race and there appeared little risk that the result was in jeopardy. The issue was around the coveted world championship title as F1 aficionados will be only too well aware. Hamilton, being some nine points behind his team mate and only rival for the championship Nico Rosberg, could only win the world championship if his rival did not finish in at least third place.

Disciplining Hamilton for driving as he did in Abu Dhabi is akin to disciplining him for trying to win the world championship which seems perverse.

Employees who wilfully disobey the lawful and reasonable instructions of their employers leave themselves open to the risk of disciplinary action, which can include dismissal. Even without the benefit of actually seeing Hamilton’s contract of employment it is a safe bet that it will include provisions about the driver agreeing that he will obey team principal instructions and will possibly define the sanctions for failing to do so. Even in the absence of those written provisions, the law will imply a term into the contract that an employee will carry out all lawful and reasonable instructions of an employer. The interpretation of those three words is key to the extent to which Mercedes can discipline Hamilton for what was a clear defiance of express instructions.

Firstly, the instructions must be lawful, this can be interpreted to mean contractually sound as it goes without saying that illegal instructions do not have to be obeyed. In addition, the instruction must also be reasonable. This is where Hamilton may have some wriggle room. If he simply drove as fast as he could without any tactical or strategic application, he would no doubt win the race as he in fact did, but would certainly have lost any chance of achieving a fourth world championship title; a fact that would have been known to his team bosses.

Taking everything in the round, a view that tactical and strategic application is a team effort would not be unsound, but in reaching that view it must also be the case that the team outside of the car provides advisory information to the driver who then interprets and acts upon it. This margin of discretion afforded to the driver would logically cast doubt on whether an instruction to speed up would in the specific circumstances of this case be reasonable. This was certainly echoed by Hamilton’s pained utterance on receiving the instruction “Why can’t you just let us race?”


If your business has a “Lewis Hamilton” and you need some help or advice, contact FG Solicitors.

Call: 01604 871143 or E-mail:

This update is for general guidance only and does not constitute definitive legal advice.

Protected Conversations Must Remain Secret

SUMMARY: Learn more about protected conversations with your employeesPrivate conversations

In 2013 there was a welcome change, which now enables employers to have what are called protected conversations with their employees about ending the employment relationship.  Previously, employers had been nervous about having such conversations, due to the risk that an employee would later rely on what had been said as evidence in an unfair dismissal claim.

Since then employers in some circumstances have been able to speak more freely with those employees who are not considered to have a future with the organisation, usually because their performance or conduct is substandard. Once the discussions have started, there are likely to be two outcomes:

  1. The employee agrees to leave and their departure is managed with a settlement agreement to remove the risk of any tribunal claim. To learn more about settlement agreements, please click on the following link –
  2. The employee declines the offer of an agreed departure.  If that is the case, the employer can then go back to its internal procedures to manage the situation. If the employee is subsequently dismissed, the following protection arises so that there can be no reference to either:
  • the content of any settlement offer or the pre-termination discussions; and/or
  • the fact an offer has been made or pre-termination discussions have arisen. This level of protection has recently been confirmed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which explained that an employee should not be able to refer to the fact discussions have taken place pre-dismissal in an unfair dismissal claim.

Clarification was also provided that the protection extends to any internal discussions between different managers and human resources.

Protected conversations are potentially a safe way of managing straightforward people management issues. Employers however wanting to have such discussions should be aware of the following:

  • The protection is lost if either party engages in improper behaviour including for example, bullying, harassment, discrimination, victimisation, physical assault, or undue pressure.

Telling an employee that the capability or conduct procedure will be invoked if terms cannot be agreed would not be improper behaviour.  Stating that the individual would be dismissed if they do not agree to leave would be improper behaviour.

  • The employee should be given a reasonable period of time to consider any offer and take advice; ten days is usually considered to be reasonable in most cases.  Although there is no statutory right to be accompanied at any meeting where a protected conversation takes place, as a matter of good practice an employee should be entitled to be accompanied by a work colleague or a trade union representative.
  • The protection will only apply in respect of “ordinary” unfair dismissal claims. Where an employee brings proceedings for automatically unfair dismissal (for example, whistleblowing or health and safety), or any other claim such as discrimination or breach of contract, the protection afforded to pre-termination negotiations will not apply.  This does therefore create inherent uncertainty in the effect of initiating a pre-termination negotiation until an employee commences proceedings, or decides not to do so as settlement terms have been agreed.

If you consider that you may want to have a protected conversation with an employee, it is preferable to take legal advice before doing so.  This will ensure that you are confident that a protected conversation is the right way forward and if not, what other ways there are to managing the situation.

Contact Details

To explore how protected conversations and settlement agreements can provide solutions to workplace problems – please contact:

+44 (0) 808 172 93 22

This update is for general guidance only and does not constitute definitive advice.

Farewell EU – What Now?

Union Jack-01

“The will of the people must be respected” says Prime Minister David Cameron on the outcome of the UK referendum on membership of the EU. One can’t escape the view that this should read “the will of the people must be interpreted.”

As of 6.00 am today, we as a nation appear to have become victims of unanticipated consequences, and are now at the mercy of outcomes that are not the ones foreseen and intended by our purposeful actions. I fear that full appreciation of the consequences of our actions will not be achieved for some time as predictions indicate that it will take at least 2 years to achieve disentanglement from our European partners.

In the immediate haze of global reaction, currency free-fall, stock exchange hysteria and concern about future trading conditions with the remaining 27 member states of the European Union, there is a risk that UK businesses may defer undertaking a strategic review of the impact on their workforce resulting from Brexit. In the short term, the biggest risk to workforce productivity will be uncertainty, particularly for those members of the workforce that are EU nationals and those that are British nationals working throughout the EU, currently estimated to be around 1 million. The uncertainty could manifest itself in key individual members of the workforce exiting of their own accord to seek greater stability elsewhere. It is essential that individual businesses develop effective operational and communication strategies without delay!

As UK businesses grapple with the challenges of negotiating commercial trade agreements in the new post EU membership world of tariffs and barriers to entry, it is a realistic possibility that revenue streams will become less profitable and this may inevitably lead to a rebalancing of profit margins by reducing headcount. A strategic review now, if operational effectiveness is to be maintained, will be well worth the effort.

And what, I hear you cry, of existing EU Legislation? The short answer is that a lot of EU laws are already incorporated into our domestic legislation through Acts of Parliament and Regulations, while there may very well be some tinkering in the medium to long term, it is unlikely, in this employment lawyer’s view, that our exit from the EU will result in any wholesale overhaul of our domestic employment legislation.

When the dust finally settles on the UK’s exit from the EU, the issue of Border controls and immigration status will become a further challenge for UK business whether domiciled in the UK or within the EU and using UK labour. While this may very well be 2 years away, businesses are encouraged to consider the implications now and devise a strategy to deal with potential key skills loss, recruitment and succession planning.

For advice and assistance with any employment law, HR or corporate immigration issue contact FG Solicitors on 01604 871143 or visit our website at for further information.

Football Hooliganism – Can You Dismiss?


Media continue to focus on football hooliganism at Euro 2016 – what’s that got to do with your staff?

Most individuals will support their chosen nation from the comfort of their armchair over the coming weeks, but some will be lucky enough to have time off work to travel to France to indulge their passion for live football.  Whilst in the minority, there will be others whose only goal will be to indulge their passion for football hooliganism.

The French authorities have shown zero tolerance towards to any bad behaviour; the response has been and continues to be swift. Depending on the severity of the offence, guilty fans have been fined or given custodial sentences irrespective of nationality.

What is your response if one of your employees is one of these guilty fans who is incarcerated in France?  

Your immediate reaction may be to dismiss the employee, but is this fair if their imprisonment arose from actions that were completely separate to their employment?

The answer is that where there is misconduct outside of the workplace, it might be fair to dismiss where the misconduct affects (or could affect) the employee when they are doing their work.

Be aware there is no automatic right to dismiss

An employer cannot automatically assume that an employee can be dismissed because they have been convicted of a criminal offence, even where they are given a custodial sentence – see below.  An employer would need to consider:

  • what effect the conviction has on the employee’s suitability to do their job; and
  • their relationship with their employer, work colleagues and customers.

Cases involving violence, such as hooliganism, are more likely to affect the employment relationship either because of:

  • the nature of the work (if an employee’s job is working with children or vulnerable people any form of violence is unlikely to be tolerated); or
  • damage to the employer’s reputation (no employer is likely to want to be associated with football hooliganism and this could cause more damage to some organisations than others.  If there is significant negative publicity in the media, this is more likely to damage an organisation’s reputation).

An employer who dismisses in response to an employee’s criminal conviction without having considered the elements above, should expect swift receipt of an unfair dismissal claim (unless the employee has less than 2 years’ service, and so will not usually be able to bring such a claim).

What if the employee is in prison?

If an employee is in custody, the employer must also consider whether, in light of the needs of the organisation, the employee’s job can be held open.  The longer the period of imprisonment, the more likely it is to be a fair decision that the employee’s job cannot be held open.

In some cases where there is a particularly long duration of imprisonment, employment may end by reason of “frustration”, which mean the contract can no longer be performed.  In theory, no process needs to be followed if frustration applies.  Employers should always seek legal advice on whether this could apply rather than assuming that it will; frustration is a concept employment tribunals often struggle with as a reason for concluding the employment has ended.

Follow a reasonable process

When there is a criminal charge or conviction, a reasonable and fair process should be followed, as with any misconduct dismissal, which should consist of a reasonable investigation followed by a disciplinary hearing where the employee has a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations against them.  If, however, the employer cannot contact the employee or the employee will not co-operate, this does not mean the employer cannot continue with the process; an employer could offer to conduct the process in writing or based on the information they have.

Contact Details

For further advice on dismissing employees who have been charged or convicted with a criminal offence – please contact:

+44 (0) 808 172 93 22

This update is for general guidance only and does not constitute definitive advice.

Working Out Working Time

working-timeSUMMARY: Are your working practices in line with the Working Time Regulations?

Any organisation will want to manage its hours to meet the needs of the business.  In doing so it will, however, always be important to ensure that the statutory requirements under the Working Time Regulations are satisfied.  Our quick guide below will help you to check if you are doing what you need to do.  It is important to remember these rights apply to both employees and workers.


Workers are entitled to take 5.6 weeks (28 days) of paid holiday each year – this entitlement is calculated on a pro-rata basis for those working part-time.

For a more details on holiday entitlements please click here for our fact sheet on holiday entitlements.

Rest periods

Workers are usually allowed the following rest periods:

  • 11 hours’ uninterrupted rest per day;
  • 24 hours’ uninterrupted rest per week (or 48 hours’ uninterrupted rest per fortnight); and
  • an unpaid rest break of 20 minutes when working more than 6 hours per day.

In some cases it may be possible to require a worker to work during a rest period; compensatory rest will usually have to be given.

Average working time

Average working time should not exceed 48 hours per week, unless the worker has opted out.

Night workers

  • Night workers’ normal hours of work should not exceed 8 hours per day on average.
  • No night worker doing work involving special hazards or heavy physical or mental strain should work for more than 8 hours in any day.
  • All night workers should have the opportunity of a free health assessment when starting night work and at regular intervals when working nights.
  • If a doctor advises that the night work is causing health problems, transfer a night worker to day work where possible.

Young workers

Young workers (those under 18 but over compulsory school age) have additional protection.  They:

  • are entitled to a 30 minute unpaid rest break if they have worked for more than 4 hours 30 minutes,
  • must not work more than 8 hours per day,
  • must not work more than 40 hours per week; and
  • must not generally undertake night work.


A worker can agree to work more than 48 hours each week by signing an opt-out agreement; young workers cannot opt out.

Other limits, for example relating to night working, rest breaks and rest periods can be modified by agreement.  Usually, this must be done with a collective agreement or workforce agreement.  If such modifications are required, we would recommend you take legal advice.  There are some strict rules which must be complied with to ensure the workers’ rights are validly modified.


Record keeping is important as it will show workers’ rights are being complied with.  Equally, it is a strong indicator of good health and safety practices.

Special rules

Note that there are special rules in relation to certain groups of workers, such as the armed forces, which we have not covered here.

Contact Details

If you would like more information on working time obligations, including how to modify them – please contact:

+44 (0) 808 172 93 22

This update is for general guidance only and does not constitute definitive advice.

Settlement Agreements – A Perfect Ending!

160519 Settlement AgreementSUMMARY: Learn more about settlement agreements with the answers to some of the most frequently asked questions.  

Q: When can we use a settlement agreement?

A:   Settlement agreements are often used to resolve workplace disputes, and to give the employer the certainty that once the agreement is signed there will be no subsequent employment tribunal claim from a disgruntled employee.  More often than not, the employment relationship will have broken down. The focus then is usually on avoiding unfair dismissal and discrimination claims. A whole raft of statutory employment rights and breach of contract claims can also be compromised.

There does not necessarily need to be a dispute as settlement agreements can be used in a variety of other circumstances where the employment will end.  For example, where there are performance or ill health issues, a voluntary exit or a restructure.

Settlement agreements are not however always about the employment relationship ending, as they can be used at any time during the employment relationship to resolve workplace disputes. For example, if there has been a complaint about how holiday pay has been calculated.

We would recommend that where a settlement agreement is being contemplated, legal advice is taken before any discussions take place with the employee so that any legal risks are identified and then can be properly managed.

Q: What are the benefits of using a settlement agreement?

A:  A settlement agreement allows an employer to manage legal, commercial and reputational risks all in one go in the knowledge that there will be no tribunal claim.  Significant management time, stress and expense can be saved.

Terms can also be agreed on issues that a tribunal would be unable to address. For example, the offer of a positive reference; or the introduction of post termination restrictions, where the existing contract is silent on the employee’s activities once they have left.

Settlement can also keep a dispute out of the public eye and be subject to strict confidentiality provisions.

These benefits need to be balanced with the fact the employee will want something in return, no matter how at fault they may be. Money is usually the main consideration but the circumstances may dictate an entirely different exit package.  There are also restrictions on an employer’s ability to compromise personal injury and accrued pension rights claims.

Q: Are there any essential requirements which need to be complied with to make the deal binding?

A: The following are essential to ensure that the employee is not able to bring an employment tribunal claim:

  • The settlement agreement must:
    - be in writing;
    - identify the complaints to be compromised; and
    - state that it satisfies certain legal requirements.
  • The employee must also have received independent legal advice.

A poorly drafted agreement or one which has been incorrectly signed may leave the door open for an employee to bring a tribunal claim, even if they have already been paid a sum of money.

Q: How long should we give an employee to consider a settlement agreement?

A: An employee should generally have at least 10 days to consider the settlement agreement and obtain legal advice. A shorter period could lead to allegations of undue pressure, permitting reference to the settlement offer in a subsequent tribunal claim, if settlement is not reached.

If there is a commercial imperative requiring a shorter period, legal advice should be taken.

Q: Do we have to pay for the employee’s legal advice?

A: An employer is not obliged to pay the employee’s legal costs.  To get the job done, an employer will often choose to make a contribution.  A good starting point is £250 plus VAT. The following factors may demand a higher contribution: locality, seniority of the employee and the complexity of the case.

Q: Can we recycle a settlement agreement used in the past for a different employee?

A: We would caution against recycling for two reasons:

  • Each employee’s circumstances are different; and these circumstances need to be taken into account in the agreement. A one size fits all approach will not provide the employer with the best possible protection; and may give no protection at all.
  • Any changes to the law may require amendments being made to the agreement.

Contact Details

If you would like to explore whether a settlement agreement may be the best option for your business where you have a workplace problem – please contact:

+44 (0) 808 172 93 22

This update is for general guidance only and does not constitute definitive advice.

FG Solicitors’ quick guide to key payments by employers

As part of our popular “quick guides” series, our team of employment law experts has produced an easy to use guide to key payments by employers. For more comprehensive advice on payments which should be made as well as when employees qualify for them, please contact a member of our team using the details below.


April 16

Maternity/adoption pay prescribed rate (max)


Paternity pay (max)


Shared parental pay (max)


Sick pay


Lower earnings limit  (a)




April 16

October 16

Apprentices  (b)



Age 16-17



Age 18-20



Age 21-24



National Living Wage (Age 25+)





April 16

Week’s pay


Statutory redundancy payment: up to 30 weeks’ pay


Unfair dismissal basic award: up to 30 weeks’ pay


Unfair dismissal compensatory award  (c)


Breach of right to be accompanied: up to 2 weeks’ pay


Breach of flexible working regulations: up to 8 weeks’ pay


Failure to give written particulars of employment: 2 or 4 weeks’ pay  (d)

£958 or £1,916

Breach of contract claim in employment tribunal


Failure to inform or consult: collective redundancy  (e)

90 days’ pay

Failure to inform or consult: TUPE transfer  (e)

13 weeks’ pay



(a). To qualify for these payments, in addition to other criteria such as length of service, the employee must earn the same or more than the weekly lower earnings limit (“LEL”), which is set by the government. The LEL from April 2016 is £112.00 before tax.

(b). Only applicable to those under 19 or in the first year of their apprenticeship. For all other apprentices, refer to age bands.

(c). Maximum compensatory award is lower of statutory limit or 52 weeks’ actual gross pay at the time of dismissal. Limit does not apply where reason for dismissal or redundancy selection is carrying out health and safety activities or making a protected disclosure.

(d). Please see our guide to essential contracts.

(e). Calculated by reference to employee’s actual gross pay – the limit on a week’s pay does not apply.

Contact Details

For more details about amending handbooks or contracts of employment or consulting with your workforce please contact:

+44 (0) 808 172 93 22

This update is for general guidance only and does not constitute definitive advice.