Contact Us

Use the form on the right to contact us.

You can edit the text in this area, and change where the contact form on the right submits to, by entering edit mode using the modes on the bottom right. 

Pod 6, The Engine Rooms, Station Road
Chepstow
Monmouthshire

01633 730907

For more than 10 years we have provided companies of all sizes and in a variety of sectors with uncomplicated, innovative and affordable human resources advice and on-site support ensuring that your people are an asset to your company and not a liability.

News

With the National Minimum Wage (NMW) now almost fifteen years old, and with another increase pending on 1st April 2017 HMRC have issued a list of the most elaborate excuses they've been given by employers for not paying the appropriate rates:

Two Interesting Employment Appeal Tribunal Decisions

Alan Kitto

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has, within the last few weeks, reached its decision on two separate matters that were each cause for considerable debate at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 protects employees from suffering a detriment as a result of refusing to work in an environment that they reasonably believe places them in serious and imminent danger, or for raising concerns of a similar nature.

A number of people sought to rely on this provision when where their employers were asking them to report for work as normal because their roles couldn't be done from home, despite the employers putting in place safety measures to protect these employees.

In Miles vs. Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency, the EAT heard a claim from a driving examiner who suffered with a chronic kidney condition. Despite the employer having taken advice from the Health and Safety Executive and having acted on this advice, the employee refused to return, was placed on unpaid leave and subsequently resigned and brought a constructive unfair dismissal claim, citing Section 44.

The EAT concluded that his belief in being in immediate and significant danger was not reasonable, considering that his employer had implemented measures to minimise health risks.

The second case, Lovingangels Care Home Ltd v Mhindurwa, the EAT determined that a dismissal on the grounds of redundancy was unfair on the basis that the employer had failed to consider the possibility of furloughing the employee to see if the situation that prompted the redundancy might improve.

For more information on this or any other HR matter, please get in touch.