[ad_1]
Until coronavirus devastated the economy, “license” was an unused term in UK labor law. It is now a legal lifeline for companies in a lockdown.
Under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS), the government will pay 80% of employees’ wages up to £ 2,500 per month, plus national employer insurance and pension contributions. For companies, it means they can retain their workforce while they can’t trade; For employees it means an effective paid gardening permit, albeit with an impact on your income if your employer cannot top up the government grant.
The plan opened on April 20 and 67,000 claims were filed in 30 minutes. However, complex and changing rescue rules have left many confused about their rights.
the Observer He has asked some of the readers’ questions to Julia Wilson, employment specialist at the international law firm, Baker McKenzie.
My employer is requesting that all suspended personnel register with their line manager every week, conduct online training and report on what they have accomplished. I am an independent administrator and this will require me to continue to provide support to employees in addition to researching online training that is right for them. Is an employer allowed to require their employees to undergo training and, if I do what they ask, would I be jeopardizing the payment of my leave to work?
Your employer is, in fact, risking disqualification from the government grant, as it is asking you to perform regular services while on leave. This is not allowed. Training is allowed, but only if it does not provide services to the employer or generate income for the employer. It must also be directly relevant to the role of an employee and must first be agreed between the employer and the employee.
The approach taken by your employer does not appear to be consistent with this. Your employer’s applications are likely well-intentioned to maintain staff morale and motivation, but if your actions disqualify you from a grant under the CJRS, you should still be entitled to a license fee as it is one of the conditions of the scheme .
My partner has been fired from his job as a delivery driver in a builder’s business, but staff may be asked to return to rotation after the three-week minimum period ends. Can he be forced to return? We are concerned that the company is exceeding the guidelines by delivering non-essential supplies to customers who will put it at risk.
The simple answer here is that the employer can ask your partner to return to work, and you will normally not have the right to choose or reject. Licensed employees can be rotated (three weeks, three weeks off) or return to normal work if there is a demand for work. Your partner should think carefully before refusing to return to work, as that could be treated as an unauthorized absence. If you have serious health and safety concerns, then you may refuse to work while the concerns are being addressed; You must raise them so that your employer can respond.
However, the fact that an employer has chosen to remain open for business is not, on its own, likely to create the kinds of health and safety problems that would allow your partner to refuse to work. The government has released a detailed guide to social distance, shift work, and amazing processes that will help companies stay open for business safely. That includes specific guidance for delivery drivers.
My partner started his new retail job on March 1 and worked there full time for three weeks until the store closed due to the pandemic. However, the leave plan only applies to those who were employed until February 28. We will not be able to stay in our department since universal credit does not come close to covering your part of our rent. It seems absurd that 24 hours have made the difference between a support salary and almost nothing.
His partner was in the same boat as approximately 200,000 others who were left without support because they had just changed jobs, so the Treasury has extended the deadline to March 19. To qualify, the employee must have been on the PAYE payroll on or before March 19, so if your partner had received payment before that date, they would certainly be eligible. If not, it is less clear. However, the new orientation allows employees who had stopped working to work elsewhere after the deadline to be rehired and fired by their former employers.
The decor company I work for is now reopening all stores and staff, who had been suspended until the end of June, have to decide whether to return to work for a non-essential service or take a leave without pay. The company will now only suspend those who can provide evidence of their own or dangerous health condition. I live with someone who meets the vulnerable criteria, but because they have not received a letter confirming this, I am forced to put their health and mine at risk as I cannot afford to take a leave without pay.
Unfortunately, there is no right to any employee being fired, regardless of their personal circumstances. Your employer is acting reasonably by trying to protect people at risk while trying to keep the business going. The problem seems to be that the person you live with has not received a letter confirming that they are at risk. This is a problem that you should raise with your local authority or your GP. If you have concerns about health and safety, you should raise them with your employer, and if you believe there is a serious and imminent danger in the workplace, you can stay in your home until it is resolved. However, your employer’s decision to reopen or end the license, on its own, is unlikely to count as a danger.
I work for a digital agency where my boss has placed employees from the design, development and account departments on leave. However, I did see on a local jobs page that they are currently looking to hire a new developer. Is this allowed?
There is nothing in the government’s guidance that prevents an employer from recruiting for new positions. The job may be a different role, skill set, or one that will start when the leave period ends, which would be fine. However, if they are looking for someone to fill the role of a fired employee but with a lower salary, that feels bad, and HMRC may decide that the company has abused the scheme if it decides to audit its use.
My employer went into administration on March 25 and I was fired. Government government guidelines promise that the administrator will be able to access the CJRS, but the administrators say that it only applies to companies with an active payroll, and since it has not been possible to sell the business, we do not qualify.
Government guidance has been a bit useless on this. It starts out promisingly, as you say, but goes on to say that managers should only apply to the scheme if there is a “reasonable chance” of rehiring the workers. The implication is that managers should not use the scheme where there is no realistic prospect of a sale.
This seems to produce an unfair result: the guidance of government employees allows an employer to fire an employee while on leave, but in the case of management a different standard applies. The government has not explained the reason for this.
