The Workplace Prescription
Workplace Q&As and the latest news in employment law and HR
Here is your free prescription delivered straight to your inbox. If you have a colleague, friend or acquaintance who could benefit from a dose of HR and employment law news please hit the share button!
Q&As
Mandatory training on a day off. How much notice should the employer give?
Q. Hi I was wondering how much notice your employer has to give before expecting you to do mandatory training on your day off?
A. If your employer requires you to attend mandatory training on your day off, there isn't a specific statutory notice period set by law. However, there are some key principles and considerations to be aware of:
While there isn’t a specific law stating the exact amount of notice an employer must give, they are generally expected to provide "reasonable notice". What counts as "reasonable" can depend on various factors, such as the nature of the training, your personal circumstances, and the usual practices within your workplace. As a rule of thumb, at least a few days to a week's notice is often considered reasonable, especially if the training is outside of your normal working hours or on a day off.
Check your employment contract or any employee handbook or policies for clauses related to training. Some contracts include provisions about mandatory training and how it should be arranged, including the notice period required and whether it can be scheduled on a day off.
If you are required to attend training on your day off, your employer should compensate you for this time. This could be in the form of additional pay (often at an overtime rate) or time off in lieu (TOIL). The specific arrangements will depend on your contract and your employer’s policies.
Attending mandatory training is considered "working time," and this should be taken into account regarding your total weekly working hours. Under the Working Time Regulations 1998, your total working hours, including training, should not exceed 48 hours per week on average (unless you have opted out).
I suggest you discuss this with your employer, explaining that you need reasonable notice to make arrangements. You could request that training be scheduled during your regular working hours where possible. You should review any internal policies on training and work-related activities to see if there are guidelines about notice periods and compensation.
Is travel to and from work, working time?
Q. I’m an electrician and I have no fixed place of work some days I can work 5 minutes away from home and other days it can be up to an hour. My contracted hours are between 8:30am to 5pm my employer is stating that if working an hour away I should be expected to be at the job for 8:30 and leave at 5 pm which then leads potentially 2 hours of travel time unpaid. What are my rights as I believe that this isn’t fair?
A. Your situation raises important questions about what counts as "working time" for someone with no fixed place of work, such as an electrician. Based on your description, it sounds like your employer expects you to travel to your first job site and back home from your last job site outside of your contracted working hours, without being paid for that travel time.
Under UK law, specifically a 2015 ruling by the European Court of Justice (the Tyco case), time spent travelling to and from your first and last jobs of the day should count as "working time" if you have no fixed place of work. This is because you are at the disposal of your employer during this travel time, fulfilling work duties.
This means:
The journey from your home to the first job site, and the journey from the last job site back home, should be considered as part of your working day.
Travel between job sites during the day should also count as working time.
What this means for you: If your employer expects you to be at the job site by 8:30 am, then the time you spend travelling to that job site (and similarly, from the last job site back home) should be included in your working hours. For example, if you travel for an hour to get to your first job site, that hour should be counted as working time, and your working day would effectively start at 7:30 am, not 8:30 am.
Rest periods and maximum working hours: The Working Time Regulations 1998 state that you should not be required to work more than 48 hours a week on average unless you have opted out of this limit. Also, you are entitled to a rest break of at least 11 consecutive hours in every 24-hour period. If your employer does not count your travel time as working time, you may be at risk of exceeding these limits, especially if the unpaid travel is long.
However! There is no requirement that you must be paid for this additional ‘working time’. Providing your pay, during your pay period, does not dip below the national minimum wage with this additional working time added on, your employer is complying with its legal obligations. If it dips below the minimum wage in the pay period they must make it up.
Is this a fair redundancy?
Q. I have just been made redundant, whilst on sick leave. The other 3 members of my team are also being made redundant. The reason for the redundancy is that the company are outsourcing our roles to India as a cost saving measure. Would this not be classified as a restructure rather than redundancy and does this make a difference? I have been offered Pilon, which I belive means that the company pay for my notice period and any agreed redundancy payments and that my employment is terminated with immediate effect. Is this correct?
And finally, I have been offered a 2.5k sweetener (1 months gross salary), assuming I agree to sign a waiver not to pursue them at a later date. Does 1 month sound fair?
A. Redundancy occurs when an employer needs to reduce their workforce, often due to a business closure, reduced need for employees, or cost-saving measures like outsourcing roles to another country. In your case, the company is outsourcing your role as a cost-saving measure, which is generally considered a valid reason for redundancy. This doesn't change the nature of redundancy — the company no longer needs your role because it is being performed elsewhere.
A restructure, on the other hand, typically involves reorganisation within the business that may result in changes to roles, responsibilities, or departments, but it does not necessarily mean job losses. Since the roles are being eliminated due to outsourcing, it would still fall under redundancy, and the key difference is in the criteria that need to be met and the rights you have as an employee.
You are correct in your understanding of PILON. Payment in Lieu of Notice (PILON) means the company pays you for your notice period without requiring you to work it. This payment is in addition to any statutory or contractual redundancy payments you are entitled to. Your employment is effectively terminated immediately, but you receive your notice pay as a lump sum. The PILON should include your basic pay and any other contractual benefits you would have received had you worked your notice period.
The £2,500 'Sweetener' payment is often referred to as an “ex gratia” payment or an additional amount offered in exchange for agreeing not to pursue any further claims against the employer. In this case, the £2,500 is being offered if you agree not to take legal action in the future.
Whether one month’s salary is "fair" can depend on several factors:
Length of service: Generally, the longer an employee has worked, the higher the expectation might be for a larger settlement.
Circumstances leading to redundancy: If the redundancy process was fair and the employer has acted in line with their legal obligations, then this amount might be reasonable. However, if there are concerns about how the process has been handled, you might want to negotiate for a higher amount.
Value of future claims: The potential value of any claim you could make (e.g., for unfair dismissal or discrimination) could influence whether the ‘sweetner’ amount seems fair.
I hope this helps clarify the situation for you.
Keir Starmer’s proposal for a day-one right to claim unfair dismissal
One of the key employment law reforms proposed by the new government is to give workers the right to claim unfair dismissal from their very first day on the job. If this proposal becomes law, which seems likely, what would its impact be in practical terms?
In its "Plan to Make Work Pay," the Labour Party has promised to do away with the current system, which requires employees to wait up to two years before they can bring a claim for unfair dismissal. According to the plan, this change would not prevent employers from dismissing workers fairly, including for reasons related to capability, misconduct, or redundancy, or from using probationary periods with clear and fair processes. The proposal does not aim to alter the core principles of unfair dismissal law, such as the need to:
Provide a valid reason for dismissal,
Act reasonably in treating that reason as sufficient for dismissal, and
Follow a fair procedure in carrying out the dismissal.
Instead, the proposed reform focuses on eliminating the two-year qualifying period currently required to make an unfair dismissal claim. However, there will likely be some allowance for probationary periods to remain in place, allowing employers to evaluate new hires properly.
Currently, only employees can bring claims for unfair dismissal, whereas those classified as "workers" cannot. However, the Labour Party has indicated it may pursue a shift towards a single "worker" status in the future, which would extend unfair dismissal rights to more people.
The period of employment needed to qualify for unfair dismissal rights has varied over time but has never been set at less than six months. The current two-year requirement could technically be abolished through regulatory changes under the Employment Rights Act. However, the government is unlikely to take immediate action without consulting fully on these changes.
There has been talk of utilising probation periods to ensure employers can still part company with staff fairly on in their employment. Employers would probably still need to have a valid reason for dismissing someone during probation, ensuring that such dismissals are genuine. ACAS guidelines will almost certainly need to be rewritten.
Useful Links
The legal bit. . .