Philippa Jackson

Why I don’t believe HR should chair internal disciplinary hearings. This may not be popular, but I stand by it. HR’s role is to guide process, ensure procedural and substantive fairness, advise on risk, protect the organisation and protect employee rights. But chairing the hearing? That’s different when HR acts as Investigator, Advisor, Witness and Chairperson We blur independence. A disciplinary hearing requires a neutral, unbiased decision-maker who was not directly involved in the matter. That separation protects the integrity of the process, the credibility of the outcome, the defensibility at CCMA or Labour Court HR should not be judge and jury. If the outcome is challenged, the first question often becomes, “Was the chairperson independent?” In my view, HR’s strength lies in safeguarding fairness and not presiding over it. Curious to hear other perspectives!!

43

11 Comments

MPs have voted through key amendments to the Employment Rights Bill that will significantly reshape dismissal protections: ✅ Qualifying period reduced - From two years to six months, with a retrospective start date of 1 January 2027. ✅ Commencement approach - Employees with six months’ service by 1 January 2027 will gain protection immediately. Meaning new hires from July 2026 will qualify after six months. This means: - Someone hired today will be protected from 1 January 2027. - Someone starting on 1 November 2026 would qualify by 1 May 2027. Why does this matter? Employers need to prepare for a major shift in risk and cost exposure. Contract terms, dismissal processes, and HR policies will need reviewing as will training for any managers who have responsibility for managing people. An outstanding issue is the Compensation cap review - Awards for unfair dismissal could become unlimited. If the Bill passes the Lords this week, it could receive Royal Assent before Christmas. If you need help navigating these changes, we support SMEs across South Manchester and Cheshire with practical, pragmatic and pro-active HR solutions. If you'd like to book in a chat about your 2026 HR requirements, get in touch on wilmslow@hrdept.co.uk or 01625 460 694. #EmploymentLaw #HR #UnfairDismissal #SMEs #HRSupport #PeopleManagement

5

1 Comment

With all the changes in employment law, the most in a generation, and more coming, coupled with a new Prime Minister. What can SME expect for the next few months... our latest blog HRCentral Limited #ERA #HRCompliance #SMEHRSupport #OutsourcedHR

4

❗ DISCLAIMER: As we always say at Robinson Ralph, you can't spell HERO without HR! 💡 Claims this week from a right-leaning think tank that UK organisations’ focus on EDI has led to ‘bloating non-jobs in HR’ oversimplifies both what the profession does and why it has grown, according to the head of CIPD, Personnel Today reports. It continues: A report published by Policy Exchange yesterday titled “‘Putting Business Back in the Driving Seat: Countering the rise of EDI in the Workplace” reignited a familiar dispute about the size, scope and purpose of HR in the UK. The authors argued that employers have been pushed by campaigners, regulators and courts into adopting “radical EDI policies”, leading to what it describes as a misallocation of labour. The think tank said the UK employs almost twice as many HR professionals as the EU and far more than the US, at an estimated economic cost of £10bn. It quoted statistics suggesting that between 2011 and 2023, the HR profession in the UK had grown by 83%, while the number of people in employment had grown by only 13.5%. The report highlighted rising compliance costs, lengthy ESG reporting and the proliferation of staff networks, concluding that HR has been distracted from the issues employees value most, such as pay and conditions. Policy Exchange called for wide-ranging reform of the Equality Act, including repealing the Public Sector Equality Duty, and scrapping positive action provisions. In a foreword to the report, shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith said: “EDI has a real and significant cost. It makes businesses more risk-averse, slower, less likely to take a chance on recruiting new staff and focused upon ticking bureaucratic boxes rather than delivering for their customers. “The primary beneficiaries have been bloating non-jobs in HR or corporate responsibility departments and in some places a string of unaccountable staff networks.” Peter Cheese, chief executive of the CIPD, noted that international comparisons on the number of HR practitioners are weak without common standards and definitions. He argued that increased employment regulation, shifting workforce expectations, and rapid changes in how work is organised have all expanded HR’s remit. “Although not the first of recent criticisms of the profession, this report from the Policy Exchange makes some particularly bold assertions,” he said. “Trying to make comparisons with other countries when there is no shared standard is problematic. “Equally, a higher share of people professionals relative to the US is not inefficiency, it’s reflective of different policy landscapes and the priorities and value placed on HR by organisations in the UK." #hr #humanresources #hrdirector #hrmanager https://lnkd.in/eH82hcRp

12

8 Comments