An unnamed Cabinet minister has suggested that civil servants should have their pay cut if they refuse to return to work in the office.
According to reports in the Daily Mail, the minister said that “people who have been working from home aren’t paying their commuter costs so they have had a de facto pay rise, so that is unfair on those who are going into work”.
Return to offices
Podcast: Professor Cary Cooper on the future of the workplace
“If people aren’t going into work, they don’t deserve the terms and conditions they get if they are going into work,” the minister added.
Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA civil service union, said the comments were “insulting”, claiming they “only demonstrate that they are out of touch with modern working practices”.
“Across the economy – in both the private and public sectors – employers are embracing hybrid working, which provides greater work-life balance for employees and reduced office costs for employers,” Penman added.
He pointed to the fact that the government had recently announced that an additional eight government departments will move into the new civil service hub in Leeds, facilitated by hybrid working.
Its Places for Growth strategy that will move civil service jobs out of London is predicated on at least 40% of roles being done remotely, he pointed out.
“What should matter to ministers is whether public services are being delivered effectively, not where individual civil servants are sitting on a particular day,” he said.
Flexible working expert and lecturer at Liverpool John Moores University Gemma Dale said that reducing civil servants pay would be “less a pay policy issue than a contractual one” because changes to individual contracts would require consent.
“What union would support such a move? If it only applied to new starters, a two tier workforce would develop. How would it work for hybrid versus totally remote workers? It would not only be unfair but totally unworkable in practice,” she said.
Alan Price, CEO of BrightHR, said the idea of pay differentials might seem “logical” but that it would depend heavily on individual employees’ roles and responsibilities.
“The way this issue should be approached depends heavily on the work that will be undertaken by the employee and if they will be working full-time or part-time.
“It is not advisable that employers pay staff less for working from home permanently, even on a hybrid basis, if their role will remain the same as when they were fully office-based – unless the employee agrees to it or their employment contract stipulates that such a thing can be done.
“This is because reducing pay due to a change in where an employee’s work is being carried out may be classed as unlawful deduction from wages if the individual is working the same number of hours, receiving the same amount of workload, and held under the same obligations as when they were in the office.
“Even if the employee agrees to receive a reduction in pay, employers might end up with an indirect sex discrimination claim if it can be shown that more women work from home than men, so employers should be careful. Further claims of constructive dismissal can be brought if an employer has reduced an employee’s pay with no justification for doing so and the employee is forced to resign.”
Stephen Ravenscroft, head of employment at law firm Memery Crystal agreed: “Making a unilateral pay cut would normally constitute a breach of contract, but similarly an employee’s refusal to work in their contracted work location would also be a breach of contract. So this would need a mutually agreed variation of the employment contract if that is possible.
“If not, then rather than reducing pay unilaterally, the employer would need to begin disciplinary action based on the employee’s breach. A reduction in pay is not a normal disciplinary sanction – warnings leading to dismissal are more likely to be applicable.”
Department of Health plans postponed
The Department of Health and Social Care, meanwhile, has announced that it will put on hold plans to bring civil servants back to offices for up to eight days a month.
It had planned to bring into force a requirement that employees come into the office between four and eight days a month from September, but this has now been postponed.
In an announcement seen by The Guardian, the department’s director of HR told staff that it was “clear that we cannot proceed with this phase on the planned timescale”.
The government dropped its advice to work from home where possible on 19 July, and chancellor Rishi Sunak recently told interviewers that young people risked missing out on promotions if they didn’t come back to the office.
The government has encouraged a “gradual return” to offices over the summer, although many employers are keen to retain arrangements where employees work remotely for at least some of the time.
A government spokesperson said: “Our approach, which builds on our learning during the pandemic, takes advantage of the benefits of both office and home-based working across the UK.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
“Departments have flexibility to make working arrangements which meet their requirements.”
HR roles in the local and national government on Personnel Today
Browse more HR roles in the local and national government
