Hi all Not sure how many of you have read the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill, chapter 2, Study and training. A 'section 63D application' relates to the new power for an employee to exercise a right to apply for training. (4) Study or training is within this subsection if its purpose is to improve— (a) the employee’s effectiveness in the employer’s business, and (b) the performance of the employer’s business. (7) The permissible grounds for refusal are— (a) that the proposed study or training to which the application, or the part in question, relates would not improve— (i) the employee’s effectiveness in the employer’s business, or (ii) the performance of the employer’s business; (b) the burden of additional costs; (c) detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand; (d) inability to re-organise work among existing staff; (e) inability to recruit additional staff; (f) detrimental impact on quality; (g) detrimental impact on performance; (h) insufficiency of work during the periods the employee proposes to work; (i) planned structural changes; (j) any other grounds specified by the Secretary of State in regulations. Having read this section and the exclusions, could it be argued that this part of the Bill isn't worth the paper it is written on. Peter
3 Responses
at the risk….
of sounding trite it DOES pass the Ronseal Test; it “does exactly what it says on the tin”;
any employee can “exercise a right to apply for training” but the key word is “apply”..it is rather like those occasions when someone says “can I ask a favour?”….it’s a free country (Debateable but) so
of course they can ASK…..but that is no guarantee that they will get it.
I just love the way it is described as “a new power”…….that is just so tragic!
Tied in Knots
This appears to be the latest "getting tied in knots" policy caused by governments (apolitical) making promises to people about guaranteeing them this that and the other. For example, the guarantee of a job or training for young people is a great sentiment but then when they work out how that fits in with employers and the real world they find that the fit isn’t as snug as they’d hoped. Similar thing here. A positive spin from my angle is at least they are finally considering the rights of employers in this type of policy.
I agree that they don’t actually need para 7 but maybe because of the "I want, I will have" culture that is prevalent in society they feel they have to make it clear that there are exceptions, bearing in mind that many individuals will read their right to apply being an automatic guarantee they’ll receive.
As usual governmental bureaucrats over complicate things. I get so used to skipping over unnecessary parts of policy that it passes me by now. I’m sure we could simplify a large number of policies and bills into an A4 side of paper if we were so inclined. Where did the keep it simple approach go? Don’t worry, I’ve got my own list of cynical answers to that question!
Yes but
It’s just the well worn caveat in most civil law that rests on the question “have you carefully considered” and was your refusal “reasonable, practical or proportionate.”
The incremental evidence is that we need some caselaw authorities to start nudging the doors open and get wider interpretations. There will be some good test cases as the recession get gets worse,and paradoxically, as it recedes.
Dominic
—
QED Training
qedworks.com