header-logo header-logo

29 April 2020
Issue: 7885 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Employment
printer mail-detail

COVID-19: Furlough scheme could lead to ‘mass litigation'

‘Mass litigation post-pandemic’ could be brought unless the government addresses ‘significant flaws’ in its furlough scheme, employment lawyers have warned
Under the Job Retention scheme etc the government pays up to 80% of salary of each furloughed worker, up to a maximum of £2,500 per month for three months.

However, the Employment Law Association (ELA) has highlighted ‘significant flaws’ in the system, which could leave both employer and employee vulnerable, in a letter to the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) this week.

According to the letter, an ELA working party has identified ‘gaps in the scheme and conflicting government guidance’, which could result in claims being issued in the employment tribunal. Its questions concern redundancy, annual leave and employee representatives.

The questions include: whether acting as an employee representative constitutes ‘work’ for the purposes of furlough, and therefore breaks the furlough period and makes them ineligible for government support?

The working party also asks: can an employer commence collective consultation on proposed redundancies while employees are on furlough leave? Does an employer have to collectively consult when initiating furlough scheme and if so, when? And, can an employer force an employee to take annual leave during furlough?

Paul McFarlane, chair of ELA’s legislative & policy committee, said: ‘It’s essential that the government responds to this paper and provides clarity on the gaps in their guidance which currently places employers and employees in a vulnerable position.

‘Whilst we navigate through these uncharted waters, support is needed and those most vulnerable must be protected, which is why clear guidance is so important. The working party has identified a number of areas where conflicting guidance is given and urge the government to be transparent so employers are protected from litigation down the line.’

@emplawyers

Issue: 7885 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll