header-logo header-logo

04 January 2007
Issue: 7254 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employers predict problems with flexible working

New regulations giving extended legal rights to working parents will be problematic when introduced in April, employers questioned in a recent survey say.

The Work and Families Act 2006 extends maternity and adoption pay from six to nine months and extends the right to request flexible working to carers of adults. It also allows the government to extend paternity leave rights and maternity pay to 12 months.

Only around one in 10 of the employers questioned by CIPD/KPMG believe the Act’s provisions will benefit their organisations, with smaller employers more likely than larger employers to cite difficulties. Almost two-thirds (64%) think the paternity leave provisions will cause some (48%) or significant (16%) difficulties while 57% think the maternity and adoption pay provisions will cause problems.

Only 4% of employers think the new right for carers to request flexible working will cause significant difficulties, although 36% expect this to cause some difficulty. However, 35% strongly favour extending the right to all employees. 51% consider themselves prepared to implement the Act’s provisions. Just 7% consider themselves poorly prepared.

Bird & Bird consultant Jeremy Nixon says: “Although smaller employers are more likely to see potential problems, even within larger organisations people tend to work in small teams and if members of these teams are given extra rights to take time off work this can create difficulties.

“We also see issues with the administration of the scheme whereby mothers and fathers can transfer leave between them.
Employers are likely to regard this as further red tape which they will need to manage in the increasingly competitive and globalised economy.” 

Issue: 7254 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

London tech and comms team boosted by telecoms and regulatory hires

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
back-to-top-scroll