Hot air and bra sizes all add to the discrimination mix

The news that Airbnb has adopted a new anti-discrimination code, following accusations of racism by hosts on the home-sharing site, highlights the growing challenge in managing this increasingly sensitive issue.

Other recent headlines have ranged from EasyJet flight attendants fighting for family-friendly working practices that support them as new mothers, to uproar after the Matching Models recruitment agency specified a bra size and requirement for ‘attractive’ applicants in its recruiting material. 

The Supreme Court is due to decide whether a bus company discriminated when a disabled user was unable to travel, because the wheelchair space was already occupied by a passenger travelling with a buggy, in Paulley v First Group Plc.

And thousands of female shop floor workers with Asda have brought equal pay claims against the supermarket, in a claim for equality with their male counterparts in the company’s distribution centres.  

It highlights the need for businesses to keep their recruitment and working practices under constant review, if they are to be in step with the continuing developments in this area of the law. 

The Equality Act 2010 prevents direct and indirect discrimination based on protected characteristics, which include gender, age, disability, race, sexual orientation, personal relationship status, and religion or belief.  The protection of the Act extends to consumers, the workplace, education, public services, private clubs or associations and when buying or renting property.  

Questions can be asked about health or disability only in certain circumstances, such as whether someone may need help to take part in an interview, and disability covers both mental or physical impairments and an employer should make ‘reasonable’ adjustments to accommodate disabled applicants and employees.  

In addition, the Act makes it unlawful to discriminate, or treat employees unfavourably because of their pregnancy, or because they have given birth recently, are breastfeeding or on maternity leave.  It was on this basis that staff at EasyJet brought an employment tribunal claim against their employer for failing to offer arrangements that would enable them to continue breastfeeding when they returned to work after maternity leave. An employment judge ruled that EasyJet’s actions were unlawful indirect sex discrimination and it is likely to mean that employers will have to be more accommodating in their working arrangements for female staff who are breastfeeding. 

On the Airbnb website, hosts can see headshots and have chats before approving a guest, who may be staying in the home together with the host.  It’s a screening process that far exceeds what is available to a hotel and a number of African-Americans in the USA reported they were having bookings rejected, leading to accusations of racism and pressure on Airbnb to take action to demonstrate good practice in the matching process it enables between hosts and users.

Said employment law expert  Elissa Thursfield of Gamlins Law:  “As the facilitators of the bookings, rather than decision makers, Airbnb held themselves apart from the problem for a while, but now have had to respond to public pressure and take a stance.  It reflects the growing pressure on companies to keep up with the far-reaching developments in this area, and it demands a new mind-set for many.  For example, it’s important not to use language that may imply age discrimination, such as talking about young, old, Millennials or Baby Boomers, or to ask about retirement plans now the default retirement age has been abolished. 

“Similarly, you may be breaking the law if any discrimination happens during recruitment, even if you use a recruitment agency.  The recent advertisement for so-called ‘attractive’ applicants by Matching Models drew a stinging rebuke for being ‘appalling, unlawful and demeaning to women’ from the Chief Executive of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.”

She  added:  “Next on the horizon for employers is the requirement to publish gender pay gap data and businesses need to prepare now, with their pay audits and communication plans, to be ready to publish against the anticipated April 2018 deadline. 

“Embracing equality and diversity needs to be at the top of the agenda, whatever the company size.”

Winners!

Apologies for the short hiatus, our blogger has been on a well deserved holiday to  get married and go on honeymoon!

On her return, we were extremely pleased to see that Elissa Thursfield had been shortlisted for the Junior Lawyer of the Year Award at this year's Law Society Awards.

We at Gamlins Law are all very proud to announce that Elissa was awarded the Law Society Junior Lawyer of the year award for 2016.  The ceremony was held in London last Friday and Elissa was awarded the trophy on stage.

The Law Society’s panel found that Elissa’s great legal work and her dedication to the RNLI were decisive factors in awarding her the prize.

Can you sack someone for voting the 'wrong' way?

As shockwave after shockwave hits this morning, Brexit and a resignation by the Prime Minister, tensions are running high on social media. Never in our modern history of the UK has a political decision caused such ripples through our society. Britain truly is cut in half.

 

So if your business was steadfast Remain and you have an employee celebrating this morning, or if you were Exit and someone is sulking around the business, can you dismiss? Are they the people you thought they were? Do you feel that your trust in them has been betrayed?

 

Dismissal on the grounds of a political belief is most likely to be unfair. If you have an employee who has been with you more than 2 years, dismissal for a political reason is likely to result in a tribunal. There have been hard fought extreme cases surrounding BNP supporters being sacked from positions working with minorities which engaged real legal debate about trust and confidence, but the Brexit debate is unlikely to grant such arguments.

 

Is it discrimination? There has been previously a tribunal decision (non-binding) in Scotland which has given pause for thought and in Northern Ireland the situation differs substantially, but at present employees cannot generally rely on the Equality Act for protection from discrimination for their political beliefs.

 

So what are the implications for Employment Law? A million bloggers will tell you they know the answer, the real answer….no one knows.

Flexibility for Football?

"But Sir, it's WALES?"

"Even my kids are watching it at school"

"My wife won't let me watch it home later"

"Sir, I don't feel well, I think I need to go home at lunchtime....."

As the Euros grips England and Wales today for an epic showdown between two historic rivals, thousands of employees arrived at work this morning hoping their boss will let them watch the game. Those that turned up, that is.

ACAS suggested employers might want to take a flexible approach and avoid people 'pulling sickies' or trying to watch the game under the desk which will be inherently more disruptive. Some are taking a very flexible approach, providing televisions and refreshments in return for charitable donations whilst others issue a blanket ban.

Whilst unlikely to be grounds for an instant dismissal, employees either faking illness or covertly watching the game could find themselves in trouble. Employers are reminded to follow procedure and avoid knee jerk reactions.

Is it discriminatory to make an exception for the football? Will you be expected to allow employees to watch Wimbledon, the Grand National and the 6 Nations Final? Be clear (if it is the case), it is a one off, because it is England v Wales. Though perhaps if you are struggling for your charity ideas this year, tying in with a sporting event will not only raise money, but also lift morale!

 

 

Elissa Thursfield, one of our Employment Solicitors was interviewed by BBC Radio Wales on the topic:

You can listen here at time point 0:24:00:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/b07f6tnd

Woman wins Sex Discrimination Tribunal: A Cautionary Tale

Woman wins Sex Discrimination Tribunal: A Cautionary Tale

 

I read about Lucy Pagliarone this morning, a woman who worked for a pharmaceutical company for 6 months before leaving and claiming sex discrimination. She won at Tribunal, in that the Judge found in her favour and awarded her £10,500.

 

£10,500 she may never receive due to the financial status of the company and even if she does get the money, she has admitted all of it will be going to pay her legal fees. Living on Guernsey she states solicitors cost £800 an hour.

 

She says she doesn’t care about the money, stating ‘she had to take a stand’. She insists even without her pay out she has no regrets, ‘harbouring feelings of bitterness and anger wasn’t going to get me anywhere’. Suing a company with frozen assets however was never going to get her much further than a hollow victory.

 

To some degree  I see her point, she has been treated dreadfully, however to take her claim all the way to a final hearing and come away with a judgement against a company with frozen assets and a large legal bill to boot, suggests either unmanaged expectations or naivety.

 

Look at it this way, Eva Carnerio has agreed to be effectively gagged for a rumoured £2-4million. That settlement is definitely as good as the gold plated paper it is written on, coming from a solvent and high value company. Her legal fees no doubt will be enormous but the settlement will be more than commercial enough for her not to have to think about working again for a considerable time.

 

Pagliarone did not want to be gagged, she wanted to tell the world how dreadfully she has been treated, her Daily Mail story today will be tomorrow’s fish and chip wrapper and I would be surprised if anyone remembers the name of the man involved or the company (I read the article 10 minutes ago and can’t recall it!).

 

Whilst Carnerio’s rumoured settlement amount is astounding, the principles around resolving matters before a final hearing and before fees mount remains consistent. The true value of getting your judgement and potentially your face in the paper is a poor return. Pagliarone has labelled herself as, now publically, ‘litigious’, something which scares employers to death. She has now retrained as a holistic therapist after being out of work for months.

 

 

When the wheel comes off a free-style holiday

When the wheel comes off a free-style holiday 

 

When the sun shines at home, our thoughts often turn to holidays abroad. 

And when it’s so easy to book online, the attraction is to create a trip that’s unique. 

Certainly, the choice is huge, with Airbnb alone reporting over 2m listings on their peer-to-peer accommodation sharing network, in 34,000 cities across 191 countries, including no less than 1400 castles. 

And there’s the chance to check out reviews from those who have been before, whether through hotel and restaurants reviews on TripAdvisor, or through postings on social media and the venue’s own website. 

But if something goes wrong, whether it’s an outbreak of food poisoning, or the hotel is a health and safety disaster area, what happens next is likely to be a much tougher course to navigate for self-booked travellers. 

As well as having less clout to win a swift result to a complaint directed to a service provider, the DIY travel planner will not have a simple route to compensation, unlike a package holiday, where travellers use a company operating under the Package Travel Regulations.  

Package tour operators have an obligation to make sure that the hotels they use match up to international standards on food safety and facilities.  If someone on a package trip is unhappy, they can complain to the company representative, and if they become ill or have an accident through the negligence of the hotel or any other service provider in the package, they may be entitled to make a claim on the tour operator. 

One recent claim against tour operator First Choice was by a British holidaymaker who travelled to the all-inclusive Dreams Resort & Spa in the Dominican Republic.  He successfully received a five-figure payout, after spending two days in hospital on the island and suffering long term health issues due to food poisoning contracted at the hotel. 

In another case in the Dominican Republic, some £5.5m was secured in compensation for almost 1000 travellers who contracted serious illnesses when they stayed at the Bahia Principe Hotel with tour operators that included First Choice, Thomas Cook, My Travel and Thomson.  The guests described seeing animals and vermin in the dining area and cockroaches in their bedrooms, with sewage and sanitation problems around the hotel complex.

 “A huge amount of compensation was paid out to this group of travellers,” said Elissa Thursfield of Gamlins Law, “but the amount will depend upon the severity of the illness or accident and what lasting effects remain.

“The Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992 apply when the whole trip has been booked through a company based in England and Wales and regulated by ABTA and ATOL.  If you make the bookings directly yourself, you won’t be covered by these.  You may still be able to claim compensation, but the route to making the claim is likely to be harder and the starting point will be the booking documentation, to see what you’ve signed up to.

“Any travel services in the UK will be covered by UK consumer rights.  If it’s in the EU, then European-wide rules will apply.  Any claims issued after 10th January 2015 come under what’s known as ‘Brussels I’ which simplifies the law for EU residents bringing injury claims where the incident occurs outside their country of residence, but within the EU.” 

She added: “If an incident takes place outside the EU, then the local legislation is likely to apply, which may mean a long-winded process that could put off anyone except those suffering very serious consequences. 

“The best advice, whatever the destination, is to check what your travel insurance covers before you take it out and to pay for flights and hotels by using a credit card, as that gives valuable legal protection if the company you’re buying from goes bust or doesn’t deliver what has been promised.  And if the worst happens, document everything at the time and get some advice when you’re safely home.”  

The Foreign & Commonwealth Office provide advice for holidaymakers covering common holiday problems that’s available for download, called Know Before You Go.

 

 

Web site content note: 

This is not legal advice; it is intended to provide information of general interest about current legal issues.  

High heel-gate

11 May 2016 shall be forever known in the Employment world as High Heel-Gate.

An employment agency seemingly clinging to old fashioned smartness stereotypes, sent home a receptionist for refusing to wear high heels. She promptly started a petition which by today has reached some 60,000 signatures.

Storm in a teacup?

I'm one of those infuriating women who will see spending a month's wages on one pair of shoes as money well spent. I love beautiful shoes and am proud of my healthy collection. My ever smart mother on the other hand thinks I am a lunatic.

You would never catch my mother and her generation of workmates at work without being pristinely turned out, this includes high heels. To her it has nothing to do with sexism, or a male's perception of what a woman looks like in heels. Heels (of the appropriate height) are smart.

I however, whilst forever looking for my next pair of beautifully crafted shoes, also have a very abundant collection of practical, comfortable flat shoes, which are regularly worn to the office.

Having discussed this round the water-cooler my colleagues have pointed out the following to me:

1. I always wear heels to Court
2. When I was scheduled for filming for a documentary at work, I wore heels
3. When taken out for a meal at an expensive restaurant, I wouldn't dream of wearing flats

Heels are clearly reserved for when I want to look smart. So, if work has a 'smart' dress code, surely this would translate to me wearing high heels? If this is the case, really what's the problem?

The grumblings in high heel-gate are more subtle. Women don't mind wearing high heels when it is their choice. When they are told they have to, to meet someone else's subjective view there is potentially an issue.

Telling a woman she must wear high heels could potentially be sex discrimination. It is an order given only to women and potentially because of the health implications of the shoes there is a detriment. Telling a man he must wear a tie isn't quite the same thing. Whilst both a man and a woman may be sent home without pay for failing to comply with their respective rules would be fine, there remains the issue of the effect that heels have on health and posture, not to mention bruised and bleeding toes for someone who must spend all day on their feet.

The policy has been swiftly withdrawn, no doubt due to the high profile PWC connection where the heel-gate woman was placed.

So what am I wearing today? High heels, by choice and because they match my outfit.

Facebook evidence for disciplinary

Can Evidence on Facebook be used in a Disciplinary?

The short answer is it depends. You will need to ensure that your business has an up to date Social Media Policy which prohibits employees from making derogatory or offensive comments about the business, its employees, clients etc... The policy will also need to make it clear that any sort of inappropriate behaviour in this context applies outside of work.

Even if the business is not explicitly named in any posts, if the company is clearly identifiable you can still take action. You would need to gather evidence, this may need screen shots from Facebook, or if you cant get access and the conduct has been reported by someone else, asking them to screen shot it and provide you with the evidence.


It is advisable to gather the evidence before calling the employee to an investigatory meeting as they are likely to delete any evidence on their page if they are tipped off. At the investigatory meeting they should be informed why you wish to speak to them and asked to show you their Facebook page. They do not have to comply, but if they refuse this could be taken into consideration regarding their level of co-operation.

Anyone who has been named in any posts should not be involved in the investigation to avoid allegations of bias. After the investigation if the post remains online you should inform the employee is to be removed (ensure you retain the hardcopy evidence).

Depending on what the post said and the language used a decision will need to be made regarding the level misconduct. You can also consider whether they have any previous warnings or whether they have engaged in similar conduct before.

Any arguments regarding privacy can be explained, regardless of privacy settings, Facebook is a public platform and the information can be used.

What if you do not have a social media policy? Depending on the comments made, you may arguably be able to discipline an employee in respect of breach of trust and confidence, or bullying. However the waters are muddied slightly and an employee may have arguments that they were not aware of social media rules which could make the sanction more difficult to apply.

(Blogs on this website do not constitute legal advice and you should seek the advice of one of our specialists if you require employment assistance.)

Obesity in the Workplace: Legislate or Discriminate?

Following comments by Employment Judge Philip Rostant this week there has been a debate surrounding whether legislation is required to prevent discrimination in the workplace against those who are considered to be a 'non normal' size.

Elissa Thursfield was interviewed on BBC Radio Wales this morning to discuss the issue. She noted that whilst proving discrimination is extremely difficult and in reality there will be occasions when it happens, legislating is not the answer.

There is always public controversy when dealing with this issue, partly due to the perception (rightly or wrongly) that the Equality Act should not extend to a person who has a 'lifestyle choice' which puts them at a disadvantage.

Legislating against something isn't necessarily likely to have the desired effect in these circumstances, in fact it is more likely to be counterproductive, feeding resentment within the workforce and produce 'low risk' workforce recruiting practices.

Where should the line be drawn? Waist circumference? BMI? Weight? Whether someone's size affects their health? Common sense dictates it is the latter, which is already covered by disability legislation. Employees should be incentivised to be healthy, legislating on the grounds of a person's size could produce scenarios where people on the cusp of discrimination protection actually gain weight to reap 'reasonable adjustments' such as larger more comfortable working areas, parking spaces, more breaks and other benefits not afforded to employees of a healthy size.

Bullying is wrong. No one should be subjected to any form of detrimental treatment simply because of the way they look. Legislation is not however the answer on this front, employer's attitudes, disciplinary processes and management of employee relations should be utilised to protect employees. A bully is bad for a workplace's productivity, moral and staff retention and that is where the real problem lies.

Panama Papers fall-out will impact every business

Media reporting on the so-called Panama Papers has focused on the tax affairs of wealthy individuals and international organisations, but the hacking of client files at Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca has implications for every business.   

The largest leak in history, with some 2.6 terabytes of data involved, the shockwaves of the Panama incident have been felt around the globe, and the hacking is a wake-up call to companies that don’t already treat their cyber-security with the same stringency as their legal, regulatory, financial or operational risks. 

“This was a major world-wide incident, involving many high profile individuals and global organisations, but the lesson is one that any business should relate to, however small they may be,” said commercial expert expert Glyn Morrice Evans of Gamlins Law;

“Protecting company data from attack is not just about keeping client data safe, it’s just as much about protecting your reputation, your employees and your future competitive edge, as well as keeping inside the law.  And it’s not just protection from outside criminals, the risk is just as likely to come from current or previous employees or competitors.” 

Last year a UK manufacturing company had design blueprints stolen and shared with a competitor.  They launched an investigation when the competitor released equipment which was extremely similar to their own, and established that they had been subject to a targeted cyber-attack, and that the stolen blueprints had been sold to Chinese-owned companies.  The infiltration was achieved when hackers targeted a job-seeking chief design engineer, who unwittingly downloaded malware through an email, after responding to a fake online recruitment profile designed specifically to trap him. 

And Morrisons supermarket is being sued under a group litigation order involving more than 5000 of its employees, after personal and financial details were posted online by a disgruntled ex-employee. 

“It’s a really big issue for every business, large or small,” added Glyn.   “Electronic data is a hugely valuable commodity and that value can be encashed when it falls into the wrong hands, so business leaders must make it a top priority.”  

Company directors need to ensure they are meeting the requirements of the Data Protection Act and the Communications Act in the UK, and those will shortly be joined by the EU Data Protection Regulation and EU Cybersecurity Directive. Alongside, directors have a duty to be informed on any issues that are relevant to the proper running of the company under the Companies Act 2006.

A new London-headquartered National Cyber Security Centre is expected to begin operations in October 2016, bringing all the UK's cyber expertise into one place to address current problems with the digital defences of companies and organisations.

 

 

Web site content note: 

This is not legal advice; it is intended to provide information of general interest about current legal issues.

 

                                   

Tricky to pull a sickie

Tricky to pull a sickie

 

Sickness absence costs UK businesses billions each year. According to PWC, £29 billion.

 

A recent ruling has confirmed that an employee who is dishonest about their sickness can amount to a fundamental breach of contract which entitled the employer to dismiss.

 

In Metroline West v Ajaj 2015, A had been employed by M as a bus driver. He was off sick after he slipped on water and was injured. M, after becoming concerned about the alleged injuries arranged surveillance of A when he attended an onsite sickness absence meeting.

 

From the footage M were able to see that A’s mobility was inconsistent with his sickness claims. A was disciplined and dismissed, he then sued M for unfair dismissal. A won at tribunal but M appealed and the Employment Appeal Tribunal found in their favour stating that when an employee claims they are too sick to work, yet they are not actually sick or as sick as they claim, this amounts to dishonesty.

 

Employees should be careful that they do not jump to conclusions or dismiss employees on merely suspicion. A reasonable investigation must be carried out and the business must be able to show that the employee had been dishonest about their condition. It doesn’t necessarily mean employees need to be subject to surveillance, but medical evidence, social media activity or evidence given in a back to work interview could be extremely useful.

Employers must gear up for April living wage deadline

The National Living Wage has been catching headlines since Chancellor George Osborne announced it last summer, but the Government’s target of £9 per hour by 2020 has overshadowed the detail, and many businesses remain unaware of the transitional deadlines and new penalties now in place. 

The compulsory National Living Wage (NLW) arrives on 1 April 2016 for eligible workers aged 25 and over, and it’s been set at £7.20 per hour.   But the NLW does not replace the current National Minimum Wage, it sits alongside and is a new premium tier solely for those aged over 25.  For everyone under the age of 25, the National Minimum Wage continues to apply.

The new NLW is different also from the ‘Living Wage’, which is an hourly rate of pay calculated to cover the basic cost of living in the UK.  It’s assessed by the independent action group Living Wage Foundation and most recently has been calculated at £8.25 per hour, or £9.40 per hour in London.

When the NLW arrives on 1^st April 2016 all eligible employees – whether permanent workers, agency workers, casual labourers or agricultural workers – who are aged 25 or over must be paid at £7.20 per hour, a pay rise of 50p per hour, whilst other workers will continue to be entitled to the following rates:    

·         21-25 years old - £6.70 per hour

·         18-20 years old – £5.30 per hour

·         Under 18 years old – £3.87 per hour

·         Apprentices – £3.30 per hour

Said employment law expert Elissa Thursfield of Gamlins Law:  “Implementing the National Living Wage for eligible over 25’s is not something that should be ignored or delayed, as there are stiff penalties in place.   Employers can be fined 200% of the amount owed if arrears are not paid within 14 days and receive fines of up to £20,000 per worker.”

She added:  “It’s important to avoid any age-related practices that set out to reduce the number of employees eligible for the higher rate.  Any dismissals of older employees, even with less than two years service, could see employers facing an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal and age discrimination.  It’s the same for recruitment, employers must avoid demonstrating any preferences for younger workers.”

The National Living Wage is expected to increase each year, with recommendations for future rises being made by the Low Pay Commission, as the Government continues its objective towards ‘higher pay and higher productivity’ in place of ‘low wage, high welfare’.

 

Bosses receive frost alert to manage bad weather risks

Bosses receive frost alert to manage bad weather risks

Employers are on frost alert, following the news that a home care worker has won her claim for damages after slipping on ice and breaking her wrist when visiting a client.

The ruling by the Supreme Court means that employers who expect staff to work outside in icy conditions will have to review risk management processes and consider whether they need to provide special equipment.

Tracey Kennedy was visiting the house of an elderly client in December 2010 when she fell and injured her wrist, after slipping on a path covered with snow and ice.  At the time she was wearing a pair of flat, ridged sole boots, and later sued her employer for damages for breach of duty, claiming they should have provided her with crampon style attachments to provide the necessary extra grip in the icy conditions.

The Supreme Court said that her employers had not carried out suitable and sufficient risk assessments to meet health and safety at work regulations, despite having received previous reports of similar incidents and knowing there were icy conditions at the time, as the freezing weather had persisted for weeks.

Because the anti-slip attachments were relatively low-cost, easily available and had been used effectively by other employers to reduce risk, the judges ruled that the failure to provide the crampons had caused, or materially contributed, to the accident.

Said Ron Davison, employment expert with Gamlins Law :  “This case has been through a number of appeals, finally arriving in the Supreme Court, and some may think the ruling seems overly paternalistic, but the Supreme Court made a distinction between an ordinary member of the public who could choose whether to go out and what route to use, and an employee who had no choice but to go out in bad weather and walk on untreated footpaths as part of their employment."

He added:  “It’s likely that trade unions will be arguing for provision of shoe attachments for use in icy conditions, if employers want to avoid liability claims where employees are injured after falling in ice or snow. 

“And of course, the bigger picture isn’t just about slipping in bad weather, it’s why employers have to provide life jackets where employees are working on water, or safety harnesses if they’re working at heights.  What’s important is making sure that risk assessments are made regularly, with feedback or new knowledge factored in, and any appropriate protective or safety equipment put in place.“

The case hinged on a breach of Regulation 3 of the Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999, failure to carry out suitable risk assessments, and Regulations 4 and 10 of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, requiring employers to provide suitable equipment to their employees to avoid risks to their health and safety, and ensure the equipment is properly used.

Grandparents right: Update to parental leave?

The Conservative Party conference last October included an announcement the right to shared parental leave (“SPL”) and pay would be extended to working grandparents. The government is expected to consult on the matter early this year.

 

The current SPL  allows mothers, fathers, partners and adoptive parents to share a total of 50 weeks of leave and 37 weeks of statutory pay in the first year of a child’s life. The Government’s proposal will extend this regime to include grandparents.

Since 30 June 2014, all employees with sufficient service have the right to request flexible leave, something previously reserved for parents and certain carers. Grandparents could therefore request flexible working to look after grandchildren. This right is limited and there is no entitlement, there is only a right to request. It is also of limited value where a grandparent assistance may only be required for a few months.

“More than half of mothers rely on grandparents for childcare”

More than half of mothers rely on grandparents for childcare. Almost 2 million grandparents have given up work and or reduced their hours to help cut childcare costs.

According to the Chancellor this new right will be “good for the economy”. Involving extended family in childcare arrangements will enable parents to return to work more quickly (if they want to). And with more people working longer, it will also help more grandparents stay in employment and combine this with childcare, rather than just quitting their job or reducing their hours to help out.

It is likely to be helpful for single parent families, or for those whose partners do not meet the criteria for SPL.

There are however potential problems, SPL is still in the teething stages for employers and introducing a new practice will be a headache for companies. There will also be more admin to get to grips with the extended rights and dealing with more requests.

There is also a question over how valuable the right will actually be in practice and whether parents will want to reduce the amount of leave they take in the first year.

Research has shown that grandparents often help after the mother has returned to work and at the end of maternity leave.

It will be interesting to see what rights if any actually emerge. We will be monitoring the consultation and will update as details emerge.