Companies And Employers

FML… ACAS have decided to rewrite the disciplinary and grievance Code!! Yay! 🙄 I’ve had a quick read and my first thought was, “This isn’t just a few wording changes.” 🫣 To be fair to ACAS, this is the biggest overhaul of the Code since 2009 and the consultation runs until 23rd September 2026. The biggest change isn’t the process though it’s the philosophy …. The current Code largely focuses on what to do once you’re in a disciplinary or grievance. The draft shifts much more emphasis towards early, informal resolution before anything becomes formal. More importantly, because ACAS wants that in the statutory Code rather than guidance, tribunals could take an employer’s failure to consider appropriate informal resolution into account when deciding whether to apply the existing 25% uplift or reduction in compensation. Deep joy. A few things immediately jumped out at me: • Informal conversations are given much greater weight • Employers and employees are expected to raise issues earlier • The language has been softened, replacing terms like “allegations” and “penalties” with “concerns” and “resolution” • The overall aim is to stop issues escalating into formal disputes (I remain skeptical). Now my HR brain starts asking awkward questions …. Will some managers now feel they have to have an awkward “informal chat” before every disciplinary, even where it’s obvious the matter should go straight to investigation? Will employees start arguing, “You never tried informal resolution”, even where the issue was theft, violence, serious harassment or fraud? The draft recognises informal resolution won’t always be appropriate but I can already see that becoming another point of argument in tribunal claims. For me, this reinforces something I’ve been saying for years …. the new ACAS is forcing those in management to become better managers!! The skill won’t be knowing how to run a disciplinary, it’ll be knowing when to coach, when to have an informal conversation, when to investigate and when to move straight into a formal process. I don’t think this is a disaster, but I do think employers will need to evidence their decision making much more clearly. I wouldn’t be surprised if investigation reports end up including a section explaining why an informal approach was or wasn’t appropriate. I’m planning to read the full draft Code over the weekend because there are nearly 400 lines in the consultation 😬🤪 I suspect there are more subtle changes hidden in there that haven’t yet been picked up by the HR press. But can I just say …. this is fucking terrible timing - as if employers haven’t got enough shit to be dealing with?! 🤦🏼♀️

Sponsoring an international graduate isn’t expensive — it’s around £4 a day. The price of your daily coffee ☕️ I spoke with a TA Manager at an SME yesterday who said, “𝐖𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐫 𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐬 — 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐨𝐨 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞.” When I broke down the actual costs, they were genuinely surprised. Here’s what I shared: 1️⃣ 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐜𝐤 & 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞 Once your company is a registered sponsor, assigning a visa is easy — and a visa approval typically takes around 8 weeks or sooner. 2️⃣ 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐚 𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐛𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞 International grads bring diverse thinking and long-term loyalty. Having to re-hire after a year of two is annoying and expensive 3️⃣ 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐥𝐲 Here’s what it really costs: ↳ Sponsor licence: £574 (small company) / £1,476 (large company) ↳ Certificate of Sponsorship: £525 per hire ↳ Immigration Skills Charge (frst year): £364 (small company) / £1,000 (large company) 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦: 𝘜𝘒 𝘏𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘖𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘦 / 𝘖𝘹𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘺 Compare that to the 𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 £5,000–£6,000 (𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦: 𝘊𝘐𝘗𝘋 / 𝘛𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘐𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘎𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱) Not to mention the many other hidden costs. 𝐒𝐨 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐲, 𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐥𝐲 £4 𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐚𝐲. Have a sponsor licence but not using it? You’re missing out on brilliant, loyal talent. ↳ Employers — what’s held you back from sponsoring? ↳ Grads — what do you wish companies knew? 👇🏼 #VisaSponsorship #TalentAcquisition #internationalstudents #GlobalTalent #graduatecareers #UKJobs

Here’s the truth: employers aren’t afraid of hiring overseas - they’re afraid of messing up the sponsorship process. I hear it constantly: “Patrick, we WANT skilled workers… but sponsorship scares us.” What are they scared of? • Picking the wrong visa • Compliance penalties • Filling forms incorrectly • Not knowing TSS 482 rules • Migration law changes • Getting rejected • Being audited One HR manager admitted: “I’d rather stay understaffed than risk a sponsorship mistake.” That fear is costing employers millions in lost productivity. But here’s what they learn once we work together: Sponsorship isn’t complicated when someone carries the load for you. I help employers with: • Sourcing talent overseas • Trade, skill & English screening • Shortlisting • Coordinating interviews • Partnering with migration experts • Navigating 482 sponsorship • Paperwork + compliance • Ongoing onboarding support A VIC employer recently said: “Patrick, we wasted 14 months scared of a process you made simple.” Sponsorship isn’t the risk. Avoiding sponsorship is. What’s the biggest thing that stops you from sponsoring skilled workers? #SkilledMigration #AustralianJobs #WorkforceSolutions #EmployerSupport #GlobalTalent

Botswana's new Employment Act is much more than a legal update; it is a signal that the future of work is becoming more people-centered, transparent, and accountable. For HR leaders, executives, managers, and business owners, compliance is important. But focusing only on compliance would mean missing the bigger opportunity. The strongest message from the new legislation is clear: how employers treat people matters just as much as the decisions they make. A few areas stand out: ✅ Fair dismissal is no longer simply about having a reason. Employers must demonstrate a fair process, including proper hearings, representation, and opportunities for employees to be heard. ✅ Retrenchment is no longer primarily an administrative exercise. Meaningful consultation, transparency, and genuine consideration of alternatives are now central to the process. ✅ Employee protections have expanded significantly, reinforcing the importance of inclusive workplaces where people feel respected, protected, and valued. ✅ Documentation and people practices matter more than ever. Policies sitting on shelves will not protect organizations. Consistent leadership behaviours and proper records will. ✅ Industrial relations are entering a new era, with clearer frameworks around strikes, lockouts, picketing, and essential services. As HR professionals, we should view this moment as an opportunity to elevate the employee experience rather than simply update policies. The organizations that will thrive under the new Employment Act will not necessarily be those with the best lawyers. They will be the ones who invest in capable managers, build trust with employees, communicate openly, and create workplaces where fairness is embedded in everyday decisions. My recommendations for employers over the next 90 days: Review employment contracts and HR policies. Train all managers on fair disciplinary and performance management processes. Strengthen documentation and record-keeping practices. Review retrenchment and consultation procedures. Update diversity, inclusion, and anti-discrimination policies. Engage employees proactively and communicate upcoming changes. The future of HR is not just about compliance. It is about building workplaces where business success and employee wellbeing can grow together. What do you see as the biggest challenge or opportunity for employers under Botswana's new Employment Act? #HumanResources #Botswana #EmploymentAct2025 #FutureOfWork #Leadership #EmployeeExperience #PeopleAndCulture #LabourRelations #HRLeadership #WorkplaceCulture

Did you know that your employees can now claim damages for psychological injuries caused by non-compliance with your policies & procedures?   In December, the High Court ruled in favour of a former employee, setting a new legal precedent. The employee was awarded $1.44 million in damages.   The high court determined that Vision Australia caused a psychological injury by breaching the terms of the employee's contract, which incorporated their policies and procedures. The mistake they made was:   👎 not following their disciplinary process correctly, 👎 failing to provide the employee with evidence of his misconduct, 👎 failing to conduct a thorough investigation, instead relying on a single statement of a third party, 👎 having an evidence trail that showed clear bias, with written comments that the employee's behaviour was deteriorating.   What is critical in this finding is the legal shift to recognising the importance our job plays in our wellbeing and mental health. Specifically, the High Court's opinion stated:   “psychiatric injury is an illness which is a different type of damage from mere mental distress”.  It noted a person’s employment “is usually one of the most important things in his or her life”.   This opinion recognises the role our jobs play in our identity, social standing and our self-esteem. In this specific case, the employee was dismissed in a manner that not only breached procedure but was a sudden and immediate loss of a job he had for ten years without due diligence and due process.   So what should we learn from this?   1. If you have policies and procedures, READ THEM and FOLLOW THEM. If you don't, you can be held liable. 2. Know the terms of your employment contracts, read them and follow them. If you don't, you can be held liable. 3. Always take the time to conduct thorough investigations into misconduct, be diligent and give the employee the ability to respond. 4. Bias, be it conscious or unconscious, is dangerous when we are facing a serious disciplinary matter. I highly recommend using an independent party to advise or conduct such processes so you can demonstrate full independence and due diligence in any legal case.   If you want to explore the issues this case raises in detail, I'd love to chat further. Reach out via DM or head to maureenkyne.com.au to book in a time.   #psychosocialsafety #misconduct #management

COURT OF APPEAL AWARDS 36 MONTHS' SALARY FOR WRONGFUL AND UNFAIR DISMISSAL The Court of Appeal upheld a High Court ruling awarding 36 months’ salary to a dismissed employee, reinforcing the courts' departure from the traditional or normal measure of damages in cases of wrongful and unfair dismissal. 🔍 Key Takeaways: • The dismissal was found to be both wrongful and unfair, stemming from systemic failures in the employer’s centralized procurement system (SAP), not the employee’s conduct. • The disciplinary process relied on conflicting internal policies, and the employee was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan despite meeting performance benchmarks. • The Court emphasized that disciplinary action must be grounded in enforceable codes, not administrative policies lacking procedural safeguards. • The award was justified due to the unconscionable nature of the dismissal and the scarcity of comparable roles in the labour market. 📚 Why this matters: This case sets a powerful precedent for enhanced damages where internal inefficiencies and procedural irregularities unfairly penalize employees. HR teams and legal advisors should revisit their disciplinary frameworks to ensure clarity, fairness, and compliance with statutory obligations.  💡Lesson for Employers, HR Teams, and Legal Advisors This case is more than a cautionary tale. It is a clear signal that Zambian courts are holding employers to a higher standard of accountability in disciplinary matters. The traditional notice pay or normal measure of damages is no longer the default remedy. Courts are consistently awarding enhanced damages where dismissals are procedurally flawed, substantively unfair, or rooted in internal dysfunction. Here is what this means in practice: • ✅ Policies must be enforceable, not just well-written Internal guidelines that lack legal grounding or contradict the disciplinary code will not protect an employer in court. • 🔍 Procedural fairness is non-negotiable Disciplinary processes must follow clear steps, offer the employee a fair hearing, and be free from bias or ambiguity. • 📊 Performance management must be evidence-based Placing employees on improvement plans without objective justification especially when they meet performance targets can be seen as punitive and unfair. • ⚖️ Legal compliance must align with operational realities Systemic failures (like procurement bottlenecks) cannot be used to justify disciplinary action. Employers must distinguish between individual accountability and organizational shortcomings. • 🧭 Strategic HR is proactive, not reactive Regular audits of internal policies, training for line managers, and legal reviews of disciplinary procedures are essential to mitigate risk. • 💰 The cost of getting it wrong is rising Awards of 36 months’ salary are no longer exceptional. They reflect the courts’ growing emphasis on justice, proportionality, and the real-world impact of wrongful and unfair dismissals.

This case highlights important lessons for employers & HR professionals regarding probation, termination procedures & employee rights. The Industrial Court ruled in favor of the employee due to the employer’s failure to follow proper procedures, resulting in financial penalties. 1.Probation Must Be Clearly Managed: Manage probation periods with formal confirmation or termination. Employers must clearly confirm, extend, or terminate probation within the set period to avoid legal disputes. 2.Fair Procedure is Crucial in Termination: The employee was dismissed without a Show Cause Letter or DI, which denied him the opportunity to defend himself. Employers must follow proper disciplinary procedures, including (1)Issuing a Show Cause Letter, (2)Conducting a DI to allow fair hearing (if necessary), (3)Exercising PIP for performance related issues. Failure to do so can make the dismissal unlawful. 3.Misconduct Allegations Must Be Proven: The employer claimed the employee was involved in extortion & misconduct, but could not provide evidence to support these claims. The court ruled that the dismissal was unjustified. Employers must ensure that all allegations are backed by strong evidence such as (1)Emails, reports, or documented complaints. (2)Witness statements. (3)Clear company policies supporting disciplinary actions. 4.Wrongful Dismissal Can Be Costly: Since the dismissal was without just cause, the court ordered the employer to pay the employee RM124,183.54 in back wages and compensation. Wrongful termination can lead to (1)Financial losses due to legal claims, (2)Damage to employer reputation & employee trust. 5.HR Must Ensure Compliance: HR plays a critical role in ensuring proper employment practices. This includes (1)Monitoring probation periods & employment contracts, (2)Implementing structured disciplinary procedures for fairness, (3)Providing legal guidance to prevent wrongful dismissals. This case is a reminder for employers to follow proper procedures when terminating employees.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is proposing a significant change that will affect performance, disciplinary, and adverse actions under 5 USC 4305, 4315, 7504, and 7543 for federal employees. The stated goal is to streamline procedures and improve accountability. The proposed rule itself is 81 pages. It was issued jointly by OPM and MSPB. The essence of the proposed changes are: + Elimination of the Douglas Factors. The Douglas Factors have been in place since 1981 and outline the 12 things deciding officials must consider in determining reasonableness of an action. Instead of using Douglas, each case will be weighed in its totality. + Elimination of settlement agreements that include terms for removing negative information after a certain period of time. + Limiting Performance Improvement Plans to 30 days + Elmination of admnistrative time for union officials representing employees in performance, disciplinary, and adverse action cases. + Annual training for supervisors and managers on disciplinary, adverse, and performance actions. Again, this is just an overview...the specifics are much more detailed and nuanced. Want to see for yourself? https://lnkd.in/e3aeAE4t

⚖️ Whistleblower Retaliation Costs Employer 8 Months’ Salary Kunene v Akani Egoli (Pty) Ltd t/a Gold Reef City (JS467/24) [2026] ZALCJHB 56 Here’s a key reminder to employers: Disciplining an employee after they raise concerns about irregularities can backfire if it amounts to retaliation. 🔎 Key Facts The employee raised concerns about irregularities in a recruitment process for an Events Manager position. He alleged the successful candidate did not meet the minimum requirements and had been hand-picked. During a grievance, he produced the successful candidate’s CV as evidence. ⚠️ Employer’s Response The employer interrogated how he obtained the CV. The employee was charged for breaching POPIA and confidentiality. He was ultimately found guilty and issued with a warning. ⚖️ Labour Court Findings The Court found that the employee’s actions constituted a protected disclosure under the Protected Disclosures Act. The disciplinary action taken against him was an occupational detriment linked to that disclosure. This amounted to an unfair labour practice in terms of section 186(2)(d) of the LRA. 💰 Outcome The Labour Court ordered the employer to pay R229 600 (8 months’ salary) in compensation. The employer was also ordered to pay the employee’s reasonable litigation costs. 📌 Employer Takeaway Employees who raise concerns about irregularities, corruption, or unfair processes may be protected whistleblowers. Disciplining such employees without careful legal consideration can expose employers to significant compensation claims.

Is your HR/ER team ready for the proposed changes to the NSW workers' comp scheme? The NSW Government is considering reforms that highlight the increasing connection between employee relations (ER) issues and psychological injury claims. Over the past six years, psychological injury claims have doubled, with many attributed to bullying, harassment, and ineffective management practices. If the proposed changes come into effect, the NSW Industrial Relations Commission may have an expanded role in addressing bullying and harassment claims. Additionally, new definitions of ‘psychological injury’ and ‘reasonable management action’ could impact how performance management, investigations, and disciplinary actions are evaluated for workers' compensation claims. To proactively address these potential shifts, organisations are taking steps to mitigate risks related to psychological injury within their HR/ER practices. This includes implementing trauma-informed approaches, as well as providing training to leaders on preventing psychological injuries. Stay informed about these developments and ensure your teams are prepared for the evolving landscape of workers' compensation in NSW. For more details, refer to the NSW Government's official statement: https://lnkd.in/gKqhBFvy