Using an outside HR Consultant may not be as expensive as not using one
01 May 2016For smaller businesses choosing an HR resource can seem a daunting task. Having an in house HR person can be an expensive option that small to medium companies may feel is not necessary. In this case study we feature an electrical company, a fair size with around 35 employees.
The company was doing well, had been around for a number of years and was also looking to expand to around double in size over the next 3 years, but had been having a few HR problems. Recruitment had always been a bit difficult, but they had also had a few problems with employees that had not been managed or addresses as they should have been. This was despite the fact that they had the services of a large corporate HR service provider at the time.
This HR service provider was one where you could download free documents and phone and speak to someone if you needed any advice. This is fine in some instances, but doesn’t really take into account the individual needs of the company itself.
In this instance, the company was looking to change suppliers as they had an issue with an employee that they needed advice on, and didn’t feel that their current supplier was able to offer them a satisfactory solution.
Simon was asked to come and have a chat with the company regarding a particular employee issue they were trying to deal with. The employee had decided for personal reasons that they need to change their working hours and so requested that the company consider a flexible working arrangement. Due process of filling out the relevant form was not done; the employee had only made the request verbally. Had this been done, the company would have had a duty to respond by law, but would have had 14 days to do so, giving them time to investigate and see would be workable.
However, as the company had demonstrated their willingness to be flexible with previous employees, they were happy to sit down with the employee to try and find a workable solution. The employee requested to go down to a four-day week, which the company said they could consider, but the employee then said that they still wanted to be paid the same amount and would like to work some extra hours each day to minimise the loss of hours. The company asked the employee to come back to them with a proposal for them to consider as to what these hours might be. The employee came back with a proposal that meant they would finish at 5:30pm every day instead of 5pm when the office usually closed.
As the office was located on an industrial estate, and quite isolated, the company decided that under their duty of care, and not wanting lone worker policy issues, they could not agree to the proposed working hours. The employee was upset by this and left the premises, and notified the company the next day that they had been to their doctor and had been signed off with work related stress. They subsequently submitted a letter saying they had signed off with stress but were also submitting their resignation and as they were signed off, they would not be returning to work their notice period.
The advice received by the company’s HR service provider at the time, was to not to accept the resignation, and to give the employee more time to consider their resignation as they were off with work related stress. Simons solution was to ask the client what outcome would be best for them. The company decided that since there were issues in trying to accommodate the flexible working arrangement, despite them trying to accommodate this, and the employee had subsequently gone off sick, they would be happy to accept the resignation. Simon then provided the company with a letter accepting the resignation, with regret, and that’s what the company did.
Simons view on the situation was that the HR provider at the time was probably worried about a constructive dismissal claim. In assessing the situation, Simon was of the opinion that the company had done its best to accommodate the individual, they would have been happy to give them a 4-day week, but the employee was not happy to accept a reduction in salary, and therefore it was the employee being unreasonable, not the employer.
Constructive dismissal can be difficult to prove, and in this case the company could easily prove that they had tried to be accommodating and could also show that they had been successfully so with previous employees.
Solved HR Consultant
The end result in this case, was that Simon was asked by the company to put together a proposal for continuation of services. On the basis of the size of their organisation, and their level of experience in dealing with people related issues, Simon proposed that a retained contract for 12 months would be the most suitable for their needs. A retained 12-month contract includes, for a monthly fee, 112 hours that the company can use as they wish, it can be used for training purposes, on site visits to deal with any personnel issues, grievances, or recruitment. Unlimited telephone support is also included, Monday to Friday. With Simon’s retained rate being around 40% less that his standard hourly rate, a company is able to get an HR director level person for a tenth of the cost of employing an HR director.