Blog posts in Employment law

New year, new law: read this before making decisions at work this year

2013 sees changes to business law - as per usual, most new regulations are employment based, and a couple might cost you time or money. But good news is not far behind - for example, from April, your business customers are now obliged to settle their accounts within a month or pay you hefty interest. And thanks to the first new rule of the year, this month's "One in, two out" Cabinet command to civil servants means that any new rule that involves business spending automatically triggers red-tape reductions - allegedly saving you double what you spend. 

Our top 10 key changes (some exact dates are tbc): 

Employees

1. As of now: If any of your higher-earning staff is panicking about having received this month's Child Benefit even after they've opted out, bear in mind Child Benefit is paid in arrears, so no action is required. HMRC reminds parents: "If you receive a payment in January 2013 you don’t need to do anything. " 

2. After 1 February, the statutory redundancy maximum amount for a week's pay rises to £450 a week. 

3. From March, the amount of unpaid leave a parent can claim increases from 13 to 18 weeks. 

4. In April, rates of Statutory Maternity, Adoption and Paternity Pay go up a touch from £135.45 to £136.78 per week. Remember, as ever, you can claim payments back from HMRC. 

5. Also in April, firms can offer a new type of employment contract - employees will be able to sign away some employment rights for shares in the firm ( £2,000–£50,000 worth) which will be tax free. You can offer this to existing and new staff. 

Getting paid 

6. To be launched by mid-March, a new EU Directive means public organisations, such as councils and schools, must pay bills for both goods and services within 30 days (a few exceptions allow 60 days). Most private businesses must settle invoices within 30 days, although you can agree to extend this to 60 days. Businesses that try to hold out beyond 60 days can't do so unless they can prove it isn't "grossly unfair" to the firm owed. 

Businesses that pay later than these rules must pay compensation of at least 40 Euros plus interest at a rate of at least 8% above the UK base rate (currently 0.5%). If you need to quote this on your bills, the Directive is called the "Changes to the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (interest) Act 1998." 

7. At some stage later in the year, the EU Consumer Rights Directive will become law, simplifying distance selling, online trading and work off-premises. We'll update you, so to see if you have to take action watch this space.

Tax breaks

8. A new credit for R&D spend comes in this year (date tbc): for above-the-line spending, a 9.1% credit creates healthier-looking income for the company, directly increasing the taxable profit which gets offset against the company’s tax bill. Loss-making companies can then claim a repayment of the credit. 

9. From April 2013 to March 2018, small companies who want to disincorporate can transfer business assets to one or all of the shareholders who want to carry on the business in unincorporated form, without paying the usual corporation tax . Assets must be worth less than £100,000 to qualify. 

Health & safety and CRB checks

9. Early 2013: To reduce the regular expense of getting employees CRB-checked, the government's Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) will launch an online update service so you can check any applicant's criminal record and/or their suitability to work in regulated activity with vulnerable groups, such as old people and children. You pay a small fee , but using the DBS will be faster and cheaper than paying for a new Criminal Record Bureau check every time a worker joins the organisation or switches activities. Applicants can also carry their checks between different employers. 

10. By April 2013: Most businesses will be exempt from Health and Safety inspections, except those where the workers are at higher risk, such as building firms or if the business already has a bad H&S track record.

Georgina Harris is an author and editor.

More details on HMRC changes on their website.

Mental health in the workplace

Earlier this month, a Bill proposed by Tory MP, Gavin Barwell, which would repeal current legal provisions preventing people with mental conditions acting as company directors, passed through its second reading in the House of Commons. As well as broadening the boundaries of who will be able to take directorship of an organisation, this is part of a wider campaign aiming to remove discrimination on the grounds of mental health from the workplace, which will have an impact on SMEs.

Given the clamour for reducing red tape to allow small businesses and start-ups to grow, some may be concerned that this could be yet another piece of costly legislation. Yet there is no need for concern. Any legislation covering this is likely to be incorporated into the existing Equality Act, as it already has provisions for protected characteristics and it seems perfectly logical for mental health to simply be slotted within the existing framework.

It seems certain, therefore, that those with mental health conditions will be given suitable legal protection in the next couple of years. This legislation will hopefully bring the discussion about mental health to the front of people’s minds but it will not be enough alone to transform the existing stigma. 

There will still be people who look at some individuals as different and make a decision based on that, whether that difference is mental health, physical disability or the colour of their skin.

A survey released recently by St Patrick’s University Hospital in Dublin found that 61% of respondents would discriminate against hiring someone with a history of mental illness on the grounds that they may be unreliable. Given that every year, one in four of us will experience a mental health problem, this is a massive amount of potential workers to exclude. Anyone that saw Channel 4’s World’s Maddest Job Interview will have seen the discriminatory opinions of the interviewers, yet the candidates with mental health conditions were those deemed best for the job roles.

So not only will discrimination against those with mental health conditions soon risk leading to an Employment Tribunal, but it also leaves those companies that continue to act in this way at a distinct disadvantage in the employment market as they eliminate a massive proportion of highly talented individuals from their workforce.   

We should celebrate difference, rather than assuming someone can’t do something because of an opinion not based on fact.

Over the next few years, as well as changes in legislation, I expect to see great changes in people’s attitudes. Talking about mental health will help owners of SMEs make informed choices and allow them to support everyone in their workforce as, given the statistics, it is highly likely that at least one of their employees will be facing a mental health condition at any one time. A healthy, happy and honest workforce is likely to be far more productive and help those small companies grow.

Suzanne McMinn, head of human resources at Workplace Law.

Cutting through employment law red tape

Many small business owners are reluctant to take on staff members due to a perception that employment law is confusing, over-bearing and potentially extremely punitive. But many of these fears are unfounded or exaggerated.

Fair and reasonable employers who abide by their responsibilities generally only need worry about serial litigants, of whom the courts are taking an increasingly dim view. There are many steps that employers can take to reduce the chances of employment law-related disputes.

Recruitment

When advertising a job, it’s important that the advertisement does not contain any discriminatory requirements or preferences, other than skills and experience or elements which could be seen as constituting a “genuine occupational requirement” (eg the requirement of a white female actress to play the character of a white woman in a film). Similarly, job applications need to avoid any discriminatory references. Furthermore, candidate interviews and the job selection process in general must be conducted fairly and without discrimination.

Employment contracts

Ensuring that both employers and employees understand their respective obligations and rights from the outset is crucial to help avoid disputes further down the line. A comprehensive and well-drafted employment contract is often all that is required to sidestep many of the pitfalls of employment law. As well as containing the official details of the employee and employer, it should also include the commencement date, hours and place of work, remuneration, holiday and sickness matters, references to any company policies or handbook, data protection rights and the disciplinary and grievance procedures (in line with the Acas code). The employment contract should be worded unambiguously and updated in line with the latest legislation. 

Discrimination

The Equality Act 2012 consolidated much of the legislation relating to discrimination in the workplace. It’s vital that you understand your obligations as an employer to preventing any discriminatory behaviour and protecting your employees in this regard. To this end, it’s advisable to prepare an equality and diversity policy, as well as a bullying policy. There are specifics types of discrimination covered by the Equality Act, known as “protected characteristics”. These currently relate to: sex, race, age, disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief, pregnancy and maternity, marriage and civil partnership and gender reassignment.

Sickness absence and holidays

While many of the employment terms relating to sickness absence and annual leave can be included in the contract of employment, it can help to document processes surrounding any absences from work, in order to avoid any misunderstandings. Holiday request forms, an employee absence record, statutory sickness forms and a separate sickness and absence policy can all help to ensure that any time taken off by your employees is properly accounted for. After all, time is money!

• Alex Heshmaty is a consultant at Simply-docs, provider of downloadable templated legal documents for UK SMEs

Is the new UK pension legislation a direct replacement of the previous system?

From 1 October 2012, the government will introduce laws whereby employees must be automatically enrolled into pension schemes with the option to opt out should they wish. The ‘auto-enrolment’ scheme looks set to give millions of workers access to a pension scheme where one wasn’t already available or they hadn’t opted into it. 

The automatic enrolment pension scheme is not a replacement for existing schemes.  The only exception to this rule is where a plan doesn’t fit the minimum criteria, but these should be few and far between. 

The auto-enrolment scheme is more specifically aimed at those who don’t have pensions, such as the low-paid shop workers and those who work for smaller businesses.

The auto-enrolment pension plans seem to be an ideological replacement to the stakeholder pension, which is something you have to opt into and even instigate of your own volition. The auto-enrolment pension is a scheme that is either provided by employers and their existing pension provider or by the National Employment Savings Trust.

The automatic-enrolment scheme will place anything up to 10 million new workers within the bounds of the scheme by 2018 and it covers a vast swathe of Britain’s working mass. It will directly affect anyone over the age of 22 who isn’t in a pension scheme, earns more than £8,105 a year and ordinarily works in the UK. This is a broad slice of society, unlike the more exclusive stakeholder pension plans.

If someone already has a pension plan, they will not be affected by the new regime and their policy will not be replaced if it is up to scratch. The legislation is designed to bring people into pension schemes rather than replace the old system and its associated schemes wholesale.

Summer of sport - on your marks, get set, go!

There’s a lot of talk about the summer of sport and its potential for disrupting business as usual — especially in London where traffic problems are likely to be considerable.

Euro 2012, Wimbledon and the Olympic Games are all big distractions that threaten to take our collective eyes off the prize as we down tools to watch sport instead of getting on with our work.

The threat of disruption

A YouGov survey for Citrix found that that 41% of London SMEs expect disruption as a result of the 2012 Olympics, but only 21% have a business continuity plan in place.

The poll of more than 500 senior decision-makers of London-based SMEs also found that only 10% are adopting new working practices to minimise interruptions.

Of those businesses expecting disruption, 87% believe productivity will suffer, with lateness, cancelled meetings and absenteeism all cited as potential problems. Overall, 56% of SMEs expect more staff to work from home.

The legal position

Law firm ELAS says that the summer of sport could cost the British economy more than £2billion in lost productivity as workers duck away from their desks or get stuck in Olympic gridlock.

Peter Mooney, head of employment law at ELAS, said: “There’s no doubt that this summer is going to be a fantastic one for sport, but for many employers it could turn into a very big headache. We know from past experience that productivity takes a dive when there’s a big sporting event that distracts workers. But the combined pulling power of all three sporting events will see the cost to businesses spiral over this summer.”

So what can small firms do to manage the next couple of months?

Let staff know what the rules are

The most important thing is to prepare in advance for some disruption by letting staff know what their options are and by being flexible.

Time off

Make sure you remind your staff what the rules are regarding annual leave. Are holidays granted on a first-come, first-served basis for example? And do they have to give a certain amount of notice?

Flexible hours and home working

Make sure you understand your responsibilities and staff rights when it comes to requesting flexible hours or working from home. By embracing a flexible approach and giving your staff clear productivity targets, you’ll give them the chance to manage their time so that work doesn’t suffer.

Absenteeism

There was a definite spike in levels of absenteeism during the hot weather in March this year. To avoid an epidemic of “sickies” this summer, reiterate your absenteeism policies — otherwise you may see an increase in staff calling in with croaky voices or rolling in at lunchtime complaining that the traffic was murder.

Your business, your rules

Of course, as a business owner, you make the rules and one option is to get a TV in the office so your staff can watch key sporting moments without having to take much time off. But you’ll need a TV licence for an office telly if you don’t already have one.

And don’t leave the TV blaring all day — you’ll have to have very clear guidelines about what’s acceptable to watch. There’s obviously a big difference between stopping to see the hundred-metres final and putting your feet up to watch a four-hour tennis match.

Online viewing

Watching online is also an option (but again you may need a TV licence). But you’re setting a very dangerous precedent if you let staff treat their computers as TV screens at work — before you know it they may be catching up on episodes of the Killing.

And that’s another crucial issue. Sport can bring us together but the chances are that football and athletics will leave some of your staff absolutely cold. If you make special dispensations to watch sport, should you be giving others time off to watch the Chelsea Flower Show or the Great British Bake-Off?

But if you agree that staff can watch a few key sporting moments in the office, it might be a very positive move — it’s a short break rather than a day’s lost productivity — and it could be good for staff morale and team-building.

So let’s wish every success to Team GB, Andy Murray and the England football team.

Read all our content on the 2012 Olympics and what it means for your business in our special guide.

Age discrimination ruling adds clarity on compulsory retirement

A landmark judgment by the Supreme Court has highlighted the issue of whether employers can justify plans to compulsorily retire someone.

The high-profile age discrimination case of Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (CWJ) on Wednesday 25 April sparked a good deal of media interest on radio and BBC TV.

The case concerned Leslie Seldon, a partner at a firm of solicitors in Kent, whom I represented at an Employment Tribunal. Leslie Seldon had appealed to the Supreme Court to be allowed to continue working after the age of 65. His case was taken on by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and by Age UK.

CWJ admitted that this was direct age discrimination but sought to justify its retirement policy on the basis that younger employees needed the opportunity to move up through the ranks, that it enabled the law firm to forward plan more easily and prevented the firm from having to remove older partners using more confrontational mechanisms, like performance reviews.

The EHRC & Age UK supported Mr Seldon's case as a means of seeking clarity as to the correct test for justification in direct age discrimination cases.  The Supreme Court used the opportunity to outline for the first time the powers that employers have to force workers to retire.  These include ensuring they have a legitimate social policy type aim — such as making way for younger employees — and the retirement is proportionate, ie appropriate and necessary. Whether it was proportionate in Mr Seldon's case will now revert to the Employment Tribunal to decide with the benefit of the Supreme Court's ruling.

I welcome the fact that the case has brought some clarity for employers in relation to the policies they need to have in place in order to compulsorily retire someone.  However, whether it will be proportionate is something that will have to be looked at by each business individually.

It is quite a minefield and companies aren’t really going to know until they are challenged whether or not they are going to succeed in showing someone’s retirement was justified.

The Supreme Court has made it clear they will scrutinise businesses on a case-by-case basis. If a company’s plans to retire someone can be justified as a legitimate aim, then the question is — could it be achieved in a less discriminatory way? For example, at 66 or 67 rather than 65.

It is about balancing the needs of older workers and younger ones who want to come up through the ranks. But this is not the end of the story for Mr Seldon. 

Whilst remitting the specific case back to the Employment Tribunal for further consideration, Justice Hale concluded more generally that in order to justify a policy it is not sufficient for an employer to show that it has an aim which is capable of being a public interest aim; they need to show in addition that it is actually a legitimate aim in the particular circumstances of the employment and it is proportionate in the circumstances of the business at the time it is applied.

Jo Davis is head of employment law at Buckinghamshire-based B P Collins LLP.

Ending sex-discrimination - an Olympic feat?

As if ticket provision for London 2012 couldn’t get any more tricky, a new dustcloud around the Games box office is threatening to turn into a full-blown storm. The London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) is insisting that even newborns – who wouldn’t have been conceived at the time of ticket allocation - will now require their own paid tickets to attend the Games.

Despite raised eyebrows from event organisers, including cinemas and theatres, who regard children under two years old as non-paying infants, and howls of protest from the public, LOCOG is standing firm. Now web forum Mumsnet is, unsurprisingly, complaining about the policy, which effectively prevents a breast-feeding mother from attending the Games.

This week the European Court of Human Rights looks set to enter the fray over whether or not this policy is actually discriminatory. Here’s what the 2010 Equalities Act says about maternity discrimination in public places and services:

(2)A person (A) discriminates against a woman if A treats her unfavourably because of a pregnancy of hers.

(3)A person (A) discriminates against a woman if, in the period of 26 weeks beginning with the day on which she gives birth, A treats her unfavourably because she has given birth.

(4)The reference in subsection (3) to treating a woman unfavourably because she has given birth includes, in particular, a reference to treating her unfavourably because she is breast-feeding.

LOCOG defends its decision by pointing out that many major sporting venues operate the same policy. Does that mean that the organisers are in the right, or simply that, until now, these venues have not been challenged?

The court’s decision could well impact on this country’s small businesses. Small firms may have read the rule book on employment legislation and equal opportunities but haven’t yet applied the same legislation to the services they provide customers.

As for the Olympics, maybe it’s time they provided unlimited on-the-day tickets for all babies. After all, they are unlikely to be occupying their own seat and hogging all the hot dogs – but they may get the gold for loudest audience members.

Autumn statement: employment law changes

So after November’s Autumn Statement, HR law for employers has changed. Again. As have pension rules. In very brief, here’s what you need to know and do now, plus advance warning on key dates for your 2012 diary 

Unfair dismissal qualifying period to rise

Currently, employees can usually only bring a claim for unfair dismissal if they have been continuously employed for one year at the time their job is terminated. As from 6 April 2012, the Government has announced the qualifying period will, in most cases, double to two years.

What do firms have to do?

Nothing immediately. But bear in mind that some HR experts have warned that firms might see a rise in claims that don’t rely on unfair dismissal, such as equality and discrimination protection that employees have as Day One rights in any job. Make sure your equality policies are up to date and that everyone understands and follows them.

Compulsory pension schemes delayed for small firms

Firms with fewer than 50 employees will not have to start enrolling staff in new ‘automatic enrolment’ pension schemes (into which both employee and employer must pay monthly) until May 2015. The smallest firms will get until 1 February 2016 to enrol. The original start date for smaller firms was April 2014.

But the whole scheme will begin on time in autumn 2012 and all employers must still join it at some point. The larger the firm, the earlier the start date – firms with 50-plus staff will have to be enrolled by mid-2014.

What do firms have to do?

New staging dates for small firms will be announced in January 2012. In the meantime, however, work out how many of your staff must be enrolled. Start budgeting for payments and admin costs for your firm. Look at your existing pension arrangements to see if they can be adapted for all employees, and if necessary start considering new schemes that fill official criteria. Ask yourself if your payroll and HR provisions can cope, and get ready for questions from employees. Stay aware of changes to the state pension age, too – this will rise to 67 in 2026 (not in the 2030s as planned).

Don’t forget these two for your diary….

2012 Diamond Jubilee gives UK businesses extra bank holiday

An extra bank holiday will take place on Tuesday 5 June 2012, with the late May bank holiday moving forward to Monday 4 June.

What do firms have to do?

Check employment contracts to work out if you need to pay staff for the extra day off. Workers are not automatically entitled to be paid for the extra day unless their contract says so, as bank holidays can be included in the statutory paid holiday entitlement of 5.6 weeks’ (28 days’) paid annual leave for full-time workers.

But it depends on the wording of the employment contract – for example, if employees’ contracts state that they are due paid holidays including all bank holidays – eg “20 days’ holiday plus bank holidays” - they should be paid for the extra day.

Small business rate relief holiday extended to April 2013

From 1 October 2012, businesses will have the opportunity to defer 60 per cent of the increase amount of their 2012-13 business rate bills. The extra can be repaid equally across the following two years.

What do firms have to do?

Apply for the deferral when your rates bill arrives next year.

New temp, new entitlements

Kate Russell explains how to treat short-term staff now the Agency Workers rules have given them more rights.

A piece of legislation likely to cause a substantial increase in the costs of long term users of temps is The Agency Workers Regulations. The Regulations came into force on 1st October, giving agency workers the same basic employment conditions after 12 weeks in a given job as if they had been employed directly by the end-user.

The rights fall into two categories. Day 1 rights for all agency workers apply from the first day of employment.These cover things like equal access to your facilities (such as kitchen facilities). You must also ensure that temps can access information on your job vacancies from the first day of their assignment.

The second category confers rights on workers who have spent 12 weeks in the same job. These workers will be entitled to equal treatment entitlements relating to pay and other basic working conditions, such as annual leave and rest breaks. To qualify the workers must spend 12 weeks in the same job with the same hirer. Pregnant agency workers who have completed the qualifying period will be able to take paid time off for ante-natal appointments during an assignment.

The Regulations apply to temporary agency workers; individuals or companies involved in the supply of temporary agency workers, either directly or indirectly, to work temporarily for and under the direction and supervision of a hirer; and hirers in the private, public and third sector. The agency worker does not need to be working for the agency itself; it is enough for the agency to supply the worker.

People who find work through a temporary work agency but are in business on their own account (where they have a business-to-business relationship with the hirer who is a client or customer), job seekers who find direct employment with a firm through an employment agency and individuals on secondment or loan from one organisation to another fall outside the protections of the Regulations.

The rights conferred by the Regulations are not retrospective. For those agency workers already on assignment, the 12-week qualifying period started on 1st October 2011. The right to equal treatment will not apply until an agency worker has worked in the same role for a hirer for 12 continuous weeks. A change of agency during the 12-week period will not affect a worker’s qualification. The qualifying period is triggered by working in the same job with the same hirer for 12 calendar weeks. A calendar week includes any period of seven days starting with the first day of an assignment, irrespective of how many hours the worker does on a weekly basis. A new qualifying period will only begin if the new assignment with the same hirer is substantively different and/or there has been a minimum of six weeks break between assignments. The general rule under the Regulations is that any break between assignments of six weeks or less, in the same role, shall not break ‘continuity’ for qualification purposes.

The Regulations provide for a number of circumstances in which breaks do not prevent agency workers from completing the qualifying period.

The most usual break in the qualifying period will be because an agency worker begins a new assignment with a new hirer, but this can also apply where an agency worker remains with the same hirer but is no longer in the same role. The qualifying period will also be broken where there is a break between assignments with the same hirer of more than six weeks, and the break is not one which ‘pauses’ the period.

An example of the type of break that will create a pause in the qualifying period would be a break of no more than six calendar weeks and the agency worker returns to the same role with the same hirer, or a break of up to 28 weeks because the agency worker is incapable of work because of sickness or injury.

The regulations also affect an agency worker’s pay. In order to meet the requirements, it is necessary for agencies and hirers to understand what agency workers would have received in terms of pay and basic working conditions if they had been recruited directly.

Some hirers are considering the use of the Swedish derogation (under which the hirer does not have to provide the same basic working and employment conditions if the agency has a contract of employment with the agency worker). This device means that the hirer does not have to bear the costs imposed by the Regulations. Instead, this would be the responsibility of the supplying agency. Amendments to the regulations mean that the requirement to pay the agency worker will only apply after the end of the first assignment.

Kate Russell, Russell HR Consulting

Are employment tribunals biased against employers?

To misquote a recent television commercial for California…. “People have a lot of misconceptions about [employment tribunals] and most of them are wrong…” – I always thought that all misconceptions were wrong, otherwise they wouldn’t be misconceived. But California has different rules, and so does the Employment Tribunal.

Getting a good result in an employment tribunal is one of the most satisfying parts of my job, so it pains me to say that an employment tribunal hearing is not an experience that I would wish upon any employer. It is a tiring, draining and fundamentally risky place to be for any employer.

I have a lot of experience of representing employers in employment tribunals, and I am often asked whether employment tribunals are biased against employers (or indeed I may be told that they are). But this is a misconception (and yes, it is therefore wrong).

There are judges and tribunal members who are more likely to look at things from an employee’s perspective, but the opposite is equally true. Having said that, an employment tribunal’s decision is as likely to turn on believability (even likeability) of a witness as much as on the evidence, and the mood in a hearing can change like the wind.

That is one reason why it is so important to have legal representation at the hearing and throughout the process, even though sometimes even that won’t be enough. Ultimately though, with the right preparation most employment tribunals will get it right most of the time.

The difficulty is that it is impossible to predict with certainty how things will go on the day. How things should go, is not the same as how they will go. This is not so bad for the Claimants (employees) who have little or nothing to lose and are often without legal representation. The employer, on the other hand, will have incurred legal costs, loss of management time, and reduced productivity - even if they win. So, do you feel lucky?

The risk and the cost often rest wholly with the employer. It is for this reason that you could say that the system is loaded against the business, which has no choice but to incur time and expense in defending a claim, and to that extent you could say that the system is biased against employers. So maybe that is a misconception that is right? (sic)

Matt Huddleson is a specialist UK employment lawyer and law firm partner with Foot Anstey and Wordpress law blogger.

Agency worker rules - 5 steps to get ready (and save money)

The law for temporary staff has changed yet again - if you hire seasonal workers or take on help to cope with busy periods, the new rules for temps could mean extra cost. As of 1 October 2011, the Agency Workers Regulations gave temps and agency workers some of the same rights as your full-time staff from their first day on the job. After three months (12 weeks) in the same job, the rules granted your temps the same pay and overtime rates as your permanent workforce, as well as paid holiday.

In 2010 the Government estimated that half temporary assignments are longer than 12 weeks, which means that a lot of businesses round the UK had to prepare in advance. However, a few simple steps will prepare you for the new law and could save you money.

Step 1 – Tell HR and the managers who use temps about the legal changes. The new principle is that after 12 weeks an agency worker should be treated as if they had been recruited directly. Part-timers and temps who take a break during the assignment also qualify for the rights - for instance, even if a worker took a break for up to six weeks but came back to the job, only another six weeks would pass before he/she can claim full rights.

Make it clear that from Day 1 your business costs could rise to include everything from extra chairs in the canteen to a bigger car park. Explain to those who manage temps day to day that when an agency worker is kept on for a few weeks longer than planned, costs will rise further to provide them with paid holiday (but not pensions, sickness or parenting pay).

Step 2 - Establish that the temps you call in are really necessary. If you hire seasonally or ad hoc to cope with unexpected short-term sickness, no problem. But if it turns out that you are regularly calling temps in because you are endlessly understaffed or to save paying overtime, you may find the new rules mean you’re no longer saving money.

Consider the pros – flexibility, for example – of using temporary staff v. the cons – higher training and admin costs, for a start. Would your business be better off if you simply hired another permanent employee? Bear in mind, however, that the rules only apply to workers who come via an agency – the self-employed who provide your business with services don’t qualify for new rights and neither do Managed Service Contract workers (such as contract cleaners).

Step 3 – You, not the job agency, are legally responsible for making sure your temps are getting access to all the facilities at work from their first day. Tell agency workers they are free to use the canteen, car park and any other facilities, such as a creche. Put up a noticeboard with any job vacancies so everyone can see it – temps have a right to know about internal positions on offer. If you don’t, you could be liable to legal action.

Step 4 - For longer temp contracts, send your terms and conditions to the job agencies you use so they can match them to make sure your temps are getting equal treatment from week 13. The terms to mirror are those your firm offers to a permanent employee who has just started in that job – if that looks like a cost problem, consider introducing qualifying periods for permanent staff. Don’t forget that pregnant agency workers must also be allowed to take paid time off for ante-natal appointments.

As time goes on, make sure that any changes you make to the terms and conditions of permanent employees are mirrored in contracts with temporary staff who have achieved the 12-week service requirement.

Step 5 – Be wary of anti-avoidance rules. As the Regulations say themselves “there is nothing to prevent an agency worker being released after say 11 weeks or for assignments of 12 weeks to be the usual practice of any hirer.” But firms should note that a pattern of firing and re-hiring temps that deliberately deprives them of their entitlements is easily spotted and won’t go down very well at an employment tribunal.

• Download guidance on the Agency Workers’ Regulations from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) website

Georgina Harris, Law Donut editor