In recent years, remote working has gained tremendous popularity. Traditional office-based work culture has turned into a more flexible and adaptable work environment. The advancements in technology also mean that employees can now perform their job duties from the comfort of their homes.

In 2020, the global pandemic played a massive role in accelerating remote working to ensure safety precautions for all.

However, employers want at-home workers in the office more. Working in the same physical space can enhance team collaboration, creativity, and problem-solving. Face-to-face interactions can lead to better communication and foster a sense of camaraderie among team members.

While remote work offers significant benefits, it also presents unique challenges for employers and employees when it comes to employment law.

Here are some key factors that both parties should consider:

•  Employee Rights: Employees working from home retain the same rights as they would in a traditional office environment. These rights include minimum wage, rest breaks, paid time off, and protection from unlawful termination.

• Employment Contracts and Agreements: If a company decides to offer remote work options to employees, it’s essential to update employment contracts and agreements to reflect the new work arrangement. Clear communication about expectations, responsibilities, working hours, and performance standards should be set.

• Health and Safety: Employers are generally responsible for ensuring employees are working in a safe working environment. This includes addressing any health and safety concerns raised by employees.  It is important to note that such matters as a safe working environment with a computer and monitor at the correct height for instance, or proper chairs to prevent back-pain can fall within these obligations and employers may find themselves needing to provide such equipment to employees who need it in their homes.

• Work Hours and Overtime: Ensuring work hours and overtime regulations is critical in a remote work setup. Employers must keep track of employee working hours, breaks, and overtime to prevent potential legal issues.  How this is done will depend on a case-by-case basis but employers will need to have a system in place in order to be able to show they have discharged this duty.

Working from home has transformed the way we approach work, providing flexibility and freedom that employees cherish.

Maintaining open communication with employees is essential to ensure that the remote work culture is working for both parties.

For any information regarding any employment matter, please contact Ilinca Mardarescu (Head of Employment) on imardarescu@astonbond.co.uk or call 01753 486 777.

The Labour Party have announced that they plan to introduce a “right to switch off” for workers, in the event that they win at the next general election.

“Workers should be given the right to switch off when they have left for the day to ensure homes don’t become 24/7 offices.

Constant emails and calls outside of work should not be the norm and is harming work-life balance for many “ Labour has said.

The party also wants employees to have the right to flexible practices such as working from home which would allow people to spend more time with their families instead of commuting.

The  “right to switch off” resembles the legislation introduced in France in 2017, which gave all workers the right to disconnect from their work devices outside of normal working hours.

For some employers, the immediate concern might be a loss of productivity or service standards. When an employee’s productivity drops, the amount of work they produce or the quality of their work may decline. This can result in missed deadlines or delayed projects, potentially leading to dissatisfied customers.  Employers already have a duty of care towards their employees however so is such legislation even required? 

Charities and mental health experts say it most certainly is and that is perhaps a good indicator for employers. 

A clear working practice within the workplace and happy employees is bound to pay dividends in the long run for employers and no doubt business who do not take this on board will eventually struggle with recruitment and retention.  They key is to ensure that there are process and checks in place to prevent burnout in employees in the first place.  Employers should ensure that the demands placed on employees do not regularly require working in excess of an employees’ contracted hours.  Regular reviews and clear guidance in what is expected of managers are the first steps to implement here.

If you require advice on an employment-related matter, please do get in touch with Ilinca Mardarescu (Head of Employment) on imardarescu@astonbond.co.uk or call 01753 486 777.

Lying on a resume can result in a maximum jail sentence of 10 years under the Fraud Act 2006.

Although in reality a 10 year jail sentence is unprecedented for a false CV. Rhiannon Mackay in 2010 was jailed for 6 months following lies in her CV which resulted in her getting hired as a capital projects administrator in the NHS. However her case involved the falsification of past employers and references.

It is important to note that the majority of lies on a CV will not result in a jail sentence. A falsified B in GCSE French when applying to be a Car Salesman in Bromley will, most likely, not result in criminal proceedings or even gross misconduct.

The job board CV-Library stated that around 50% of job-seekers admitted to lying on their CV’s . Evidently all those who lie on their CV’s do not get caught but is it worth the risk?

An employee lying on their Curriculum Vitae  (CV) counts as fraud under false representation. As a result, the employer has the right to terminate their contract for gross misconduct.

If the original CV contained falsehoods the employer may be exempt from being sued by the employee. If the employer can prove he/she would not have originally hired the employee if the CV were true then the employer can, in certain circumstances, avoid liability in wrongful termination proceedings. Thus the employer could violate an employee’s legal rights by (for example) firing them because of their gender/race and yet not be liable in legal proceedings. This is called the ‘after acquired evidence’ theory.

If you’re an employer or employee and have any queries over any aspect of employment law please do not hesitate to contact us.