Here we go - again

The World Cup starts this week. Public sector employers need to think carefully about their approach to the employment challenges the month-long tournament will inevitably bring, writes Claire-Jane Nicol. Adopting a spirit of compromise may be key to avoiding problems.

As the excitement mounts in advance of 11 June, when the month-long football World Cup begins in South Africa, public sector employers should think back to the last tournament, and consider strategies to manage its impact on their organisation.

About 70,000 England fans travelled to Germany in 2006, many without tickets who just wanted to sample the atmosphere. The World Cup is one of those rare occasions when a large chunk of the nation's workforce wants the same days off, and contracts of employment do vary, but on the whole it is first come first served, so employers should make sure that the rules are well publicised.

In addition, during major football tournaments, employers in the UK are often faced with higher than average levels of absence, particularly if the home sides progress to the latter stages of the competition. Other likely causes of problems include employees being engaged in drunken or violent behaviour, and employees turning up late for work, or abusing IT systems. What should an employer do to cope with these issues until “it’s all over” for another four years?

Employers should remember not to jump to conclusions simply because an employee arrives late to work, or has not turned up for work on a match day. There may be a reasonable explanation. Before taking disciplinary action, employers should investigate the reason for the absence and consider whether the employee has reported the absence in accordance with the employer’s policy, and whether there is evidence to suggest that the employee is not genuinely ill. In addition, a timely reminder to staff about the correct procedure for notifying absence, and a warning that unauthorised absence will be a disciplinary offence might help to avoid trouble.

Where employers decide to take action in relation to unauthorised absence, or other misconduct, eg abuse of internet facilities, they must follow a reasonable disciplinary procedure, making sure that this complies with statutory dispute resolution procedures. Disciplinary offences committed during the World Cup should be treated no differently from similar offences committed at any other time.

Following the media coverage of the violence in France 1998, Tony Blair advised employers to dismiss employees who had been involved in football hooliganism. This was rash advice. It is well established that criminal offences committed outside the employment relationship should not be treated as misconduct justifying disciplinary action unless the offence has some relevance to the duties of the individual employee or that employee’s ability to do his job.

If an employee is involved in hooliganism abroad, most employers would have difficulty in demonstrating that is a fair reason for dismissal. Much will depend on the type of the work the employee does and the level of seniority. For example, it is more likely that a diplomat could be fairly dismissed for hooliganism than a telesales worker. When considering whether to take disciplinary action all the facts of the situation should be considered; what does the employee do? What kind of behaviour was involved? And the crucial question: What effect does this have on that individual’s ability to do his job?

One final issue to consider is that employers may wish to remind staff of the provisions of the organisation’s equal opportunities policy, with particular reference to race discrimination. Offensive “banter” based on race which has either the purpose or effect of violating an employee’s dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment can form the basis of a race discrimination claim in the Employment Tribunal.

Inevitably, there will some employees who wish to watch World Cup matches, with some kicking off at lunchtime or in the early afternoon. A flat refusal to allow this will affect morale, which may already be suffering in the wake of the recently announced public sector spending cuts. A compromise could be agreed. For example, televisions or radios may be allowed in the workplace for the duration of designated matches. Employees may be offered a degree of flexibility over working time to allow them to watch a match as long as hours lost are made up at a later date. Even dress codes could be temporarily relaxed, to allow football shirts to be worn.

Although this approach may not be feasible for all employers, a spirit of compromise often boosts workplace morale. Employers will save management time that would otherwise be wasted taking employees through the disciplinary process. If morale is maintained, time lost to “World Cup Fever” is likely to be lower.

Claire-Jane Nicol is a partner at Dickinson Dees (www.dickinson-dees.com). She can be contacted on 0191 279 9752 and via This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..