header-logo header-logo

13 May 2020
Issue: 7886 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Employment
printer mail-detail

COVID-19: Heed concerns, employers told

Employers could face legal proceedings if they fail to take account of coronavirus fears, lawyers have warned

The Prime Minister announced on Sunday that employees can return to work if they cannot work from home.

However, Dan Hobbs, employment barrister at 5 Essex Court, said: ‘Social distancing in the workplace (particularly on construction sites) may be difficult to achieve and other protective measures, such as the provision of PPE (personal protective equipment), has been a point of much contention throughout the crisis to date.

‘Employees may be rightly concerned for their own health and safety as well as that of their co-workers and others in their household. Section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that employees may not be subjected to a detriment because they have raised a relevant health and safety concern with their employer (such as the failure to provide effective social distancing measures in the workplace or the unavailability of PPE).’

Consequently, any employer who took disciplinary action or withheld pay because the employee refused to return, walked out or raised a relevant concern where they reasonably believed the danger to be serious and imminent would be in breach and could face proceedings in the employment tribunal, he said. Similarly, ‘if the employee is dismissed for that reason, they will have a claim under s 100 ERA for automatic unfair dismissal. There is no qualifying period of employment to bring such a claim and interim relief is available’.

Meanwhile, lawyers broadly welcomed Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s four-month extension of the furlough scheme to the end of October, with a part-time flexible option available from August.

Jo Keddie, partner at Winckworth Sherwood, said: ‘Employers may still face some difficult practical choices as to how to put that into practice and how best to balance furlough arrangements with part-time working for employees where possible.

‘The wider guidance issued this month surrounding health and safety requirements for businesses in different sectors will still be of crucial importance.’

Simon Davis, president of the Law Society, said the extension would be ‘a big help for firms, particularly small ones’.

Issue: 7886 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll