Survey shows online sexual harassment increased during coronavirus lockdowns

Few people would argue that the Internet has shaped and transformed the 21st century.  From shopping to researching, healthcare to defence, the online world has changed almost every aspect of our lives; sometimes for the better, and occasionally for the worse. It has long been recognised that many school children are tormented by online bullies.  Home used to be a safe haven but thanks to the Internet, tormentors can pursue students at home.  And following the surge in homeworking, driven by the Coronavirus pandemic, a new study shows that those suffering from workplace sexual harassment are also now having to deal with such behaviour inside their own four walls.

A recent survey by the Rights of Women charity lays bare the extent of the online sexual harassment problem.  It shows:

  • “45% of women experiencing sexual harassment, reported experiencing the harassment remotely, i.e. sexual messages (e.g. email, texts, social media); cyber harassment (e.g. via Zoom, Teams, Slack etc); and sexual calls.
  • 42% of women experiencing sexual harassment at work have experienced some to all of the harassment online.
  • 23% of women who have experienced sexual harassment reported an increase or escalation whilst working from home, since the start of lockdown (23rd March 2020).”

Furthermore, 72% of women do not feel that their employer is doing enough to combat online sexual harassment.  A hospital worker spoke of her experience, stating:

“As the pandemic was declared, all attention was diverted in managing clinical pressures and needs as I work in a hospital. This meant an investigation was not started for months. In the meantime, I felt unprotected as there was no system in place to remove the harasser from the department whilst an investigation was pending. …There is no policy in this mammoth organisation that addresses sexual harassment.”

Deeba Syed, Senior Legal Officer, Rights of Women, said:

“These statistics echo what women have been telling us already, sexual harassment at work happens online as well as in-person. Although more women are working from home, online sexual harassment has increased and women continue to suffer sexual harassment despite the Covid-19 pandemic. Women working from home have seen their harassers take to Zoom, Microsoft Teams, social media, messages, and phone calls, to continue the torrent of abuse.”

For employers, protecting employees from online sexual harassment presents yet another challenge that must be addressed.  Failure to do so could result in expensive, stressful, and reputation damaging Employment Tribunal claims.

What are employers’ duties regarding workplace sexual harassment?

Sexual harassment is illegal under the Equality Act 2010.  Sexual harassment can arise where there is:

  • Unwanted conduct of a sexual nature that has the purpose or effect of violating the victim’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for the victim.
  • Less favourable treatment – this may occur because of the victim’s rejection or submission to the conduct as described above.

Employers have a duty to prevent workplace sexual harassment not only at the workplace premises but also at work-related events such as Christmas parties and on social media.

To protect their employees and commercial reputations, employers must take ‘reasonable steps’ to prevent sexual harassment from occurring.  Doing so may also act as a defence should an employee bring a sexual harassment claim against them.  Examples of ‘reasonable steps’ include creating a well-drafted sexual harassment policy and ensuring that policy is well communicated throughout the business.  It is also important to have training in place to help managers spot signs of harassment (both in person and online) and appoint one or two people to act as a safe person to go to if an employee wants to talk about concerns regarding a colleague’s behaviour.  An alternative is to publicise details of an outside organisation that can provide a confidential person to talk to.

Talk to an Employment Solicitor regarding sexual harassment

In this age of #MeToo, employers must be vigilant in their anti-sexual harassment policies and procedures.  If you have received a complaint about online sexual harassment, speak to an experienced Employment Law Solicitor about the best way to manage the situation.  The initial steps you take in handling a sexual harassment claim can make a significant difference as to whether an Employment Tribunal claim is brought.

If you would like to discuss any of the above issues, please contact Susan Bernstein, Employment Partner on 020 8349 5480 or by email

Uber loses in the Supreme Court – Uber BV v Aslam & Ors

Earlier this month, Uber, the largest player in the gig economy ran out of appeals in its long battle to retain the right to classify its drivers as self-employed rather than workers.  The Supreme Court dismissed Uber’s appeal, meaning thousands of drivers became entitled to minimum wage and holiday pay.

For employers, the decision has far-reaching consequences in cases where the relationship between the organisation and self-employed people may blur into the realms of ‘worker’.  To help you understand what the decision means for you, our Employment Law Solicitors in London have answered some of the most frequently asked questions related to the Supreme Court’s ruling.

What was the background to the decision?

In 2016, two former Uber drivers took the ride-hailing company to the Employment Tribunal arguing that they were workers and were therefore entitled to be paid the minimum wage and holiday pay.  Uber argued that all its drivers were self-employed.

The Employment Tribunal found in favour of the drivers.  Uber appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal, both of whom upheld the decision in the first instance.

Why did the Supreme Court rule that Uber drivers were not self-employed?

The Supreme Court upheld the employment tribunal’s decision in Uber BV v Aslam & Ors, that Uber drivers are “workers” for the purposes of the rights mentioned above. It held that worker status was a question of statutory interpretation rather than contractual interpretation and therefore the written documentation between Uber and its drivers was not the correct starting point.  Instead, it was necessary to consider the purpose of the relevant legislation, which was to protect vulnerable individuals in a position of subordination and dependence in relation to another person who controls their work.  The greater the degree of control, the more likely the individual is a worker.

Delivering the unanimous decision, Lord Leggatt emphasised five aspects of the findings made by the Employment Tribunal which justified the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the drivers were working for and under contracts with Uber.

  1. Uber set the fare and drivers were not permitted to charge more, meaning that Uber dictated how much the drivers were paid.
  2. All drivers had to sign a contract and were not permitted to negotiate the terms.
  3. Once a driver had logged onto the Uber app, their right to turn down requests for rides was constrained by Uber.
  4. Uber exercised considerable control over how the drivers did their work; for example, passengers were encouraged to rate drivers on a scale of 1 to 5 and warnings were given for low scores. If the driver’s average score did not improve, Uber would end its relationship with them.
  5. Uber took active steps to prevent passengers from developing a relationship with its drivers beyond a particular ride.

Taking these factors together, it was clear that the services provided by the drivers were very tightly defined and controlled by Uber and that, accordingly, they were workers.

In addition, the Court held that the drivers’ working time under the Working Time Regulations was not limited to the time spent driving passengers to their destinations but started from the moment they logged in to the Uber app, within the territory in which they were licenced to operate, and were ready and willing to accept rides. 

Lord Leggatt concluded:

“Taking these factors together, it can be seen that the transportation service performed by drivers and offered to passengers through the Uber app is very tightly defined and controlled by Uber. Furthermore, it is designed and organised in such a way as to provide a standardised service to passengers in which drivers are perceived as substantially interchangeable and from which Uber, rather than individual drivers, obtains the benefit of customer loyalty and goodwill. From the drivers’ point of view, the same factors – in particular, the inability to offer a distinctive service or to set their own prices and Uber’s control over all aspects of their interaction with passengers – mean that they have little or no ability to improve their economic position through professional or entrepreneurial skill. In practice the only way in which they can increase their earnings is by working longer hours while constantly meeting Uber’s measures of performance.”

What is the difference between a worker, employee, and self-employed person?

The Supreme Court upheld that Uber drivers were ‘workers’ as opposed to ‘employees’.  A worker includes an individual who works under a contract, whether written or oral, whereby the individual undertakes to perform personally work for the other party to the contract, provided that the other party is not, in reality a client or customer of the individual.

An employee is defined under section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, as a person who has entered into or works under a contract of employment.  The contract can be in writing or implied by the structure of the working relationship.

A self-employed person is someone who runs their own business and takes responsibility for its success.  An employer has no responsibility in terms of employment rights and, subject to any commercial contract which is negotiated by both parties, a self-employed person is in charge of how and when their work is undertaken.

In determining whether an individual is self-employed or a worker, the courts will look at the reality of the working relationship rather than the label that the parties may have stated in the contract between them.

What advice do employment lawyers say to take in light of the Uber decision?

This decision leaves Uber vulnerable to claims from its workers for up to two years’ back pay or £25,000 (whichever is larger) in an employment tribunal, or up to six years’ back pay in the county court. They will also be able to claim 5.6 weeks’ annual leave each year.  However, they will not have employee rights, such as a right to a statutory redundancy payment or protection from unfair dismissal.

Many linked cases have been stayed pending the outcome of this case in the Supreme Court and the floodgate may open for many more.  That said, the Court’s finding that the Uber drivers were workers was fact specific and it may be that a different decision could be reached on a different set of facts.

If you are unsure as to whether certain members of your team are employees, workers, or self-employed, speak to one of our Employment Law Solicitors in London who can quickly advise you.

To make an appointment to discuss employment law matters please email us or phone 020 8349 0321.

Redundancy advice for employees and employers

In this post we look at some of the common questions both employees and employers have been asking about redundancies:

When is a dismissal of an employee by reason of redundancy?

A dismissal is taken to be a dismissal by reason of redundancy where it is wholly or mainly attributable to:

  • a closure of the employer’s business as a whole (business closure);
  • a closure of the particular workplace where the employee was employed (workplace closure); or
  • a reduction in the size of the workforce because the requirements of the business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind, or to do so in the place where the employee was employed, have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish (diminished requirements).

When is collective redundancy consultation necessary?

If an employer is proposing to make 20 or more employees redundant at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less, it must consult on its proposal with appropriate representatives, such as a recognised trade union, or if none, with representatives elected by the affected employees and it must also notify BEIS.

The consultation should begin in good time and within minimum time limits:

  • Where the employer is proposing to dismiss 100 or more employees in a 90-day period, consultation must begin at least 45 days before the first dismissal takes effect.
  • Where the employer is proposing to dismiss between 20 and 99 employees in a 90-day period, consultation must begin at least 30 days before the first dismissal takes effect.

The maximum sanction for breaching the obligations is a protective award of up to 90 days’ gross actual pay for each affected employee, which can add up to a substantial amount.

Employers must not assume that collective consultation is an adequate substitute for individual consultation with affected employees.

What procedure does an employer need to follow in individual cases?

In dismissing employees for redundancy, employers should act fairly and reasonably in order to avoid claims for unfair dismissal.  Employers should do this by:

  • following any contractual redundancy procedures, express or implied, that may apply; and
  • following a fair procedure enabling the employer to make dismissal decisions that are fair and reasonable in the circumstances. In particular, an employer will normally not act reasonably (and a dismissal will therefore be unfair) if:
  1. there is no genuine redundancy situation; or
  2. the employer fails to consult the employee individually about the proposed redundancy; or
  3. the employee is unfairly selected because the employer fails to identify a fair pool from which to select the redundant employee or fails to choose reasonable selection criteria that can be objectively measured and are not discriminatory; or
  4. the employer fails to search for and, if it is available, give the employee an opportunity to apply for suitable alternative employment within its organisation.

The obligations with regard to an individual are distinct from the employer’s collective redundancy obligations. Accordingly, if there is a collective redundancy situation, there will still be a need for individual as well as collective consultation and the two processes will often run at the same time, although some aspects of the collective consultation should take place first.

An employee with at least two years’ continuous service is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment in addition to any contractual redundancy payment or other benefits that their employer may provide.

Can an employer make an employee on furlough redundant?

An employee can be made redundant whilst on furlough.  An employee’s redundancy rights will not be affected by being on furlough but an employer cannot claim reimbursement of redundancy payments or notice pay under the CRJS.  Notice pay will be at the employee’s normal rate of remuneration, not their furlough pay. 

Whether an employee would have a potentially successful claim for unfair dismissal if they were made redundant whilst on furlough or if they were made redundant instead of being furloughed would depend on the usual test of reasonableness, depending on the particular circumstances of the case, including the size and resources of the employer. Many workplaces have closed and jobs genuinely ceased to exist in this coronavirus pandemic. The fact that there may be a possibility that an employer may need employees in similar roles sometime in the future does not mean that an employer must continue to furlough employees. However, employers would be advised to consider furloughing as an alternative to redundancy and record in writing their reasons why furloughing or continuing to furlough would not be suitable in the particular circumstances of the case.

Redundancy or reorganisation exercise?

Where the employer carries out a reorganisation so that old roles disappear and are replaced by new roles, the question of whether this reorganisation is in fact a redundancy exercise is fact sensitive. As it was put by Burton P in Kingwell and others v Elizabeth Bradley Designs Ltd EAT/0661/02  “It is not an automatic consequence of there being a business reorganisation that there is a redundancy; nor is there a need for a business reorganisation in order that there should be a redundancy situation. The two are entirely self-standing concepts. But if a business reorganisation leads to a diminution in the requirement for employees carrying out the relevant work, then that business reorganisation leads to a redundancy situation and if not, not.” Given that these decisions are fact sensitive, they can be difficult to reconcile and can often cause uncertainty for employers.

If there is a reorganisation so that an old role disappears and is replaced by a new role, and the employee applies for the new role, the employer does not need to use objective criteria to assess the employee’s ability to perform in the new role, and can rely on their usual interview process to make a subjective assessment of who is the best person for the job as long as a fair process is followed and there is no indication of bias.

Can an employee still be made redundant if she is pregnant or on maternity leave?

Selection for redundancy due to pregnancy or maternity is automatically unfair and no minimum period of employment is required for an employee to make a claim. This is also likely to amount to sex discrimination.

That said, where a woman is made redundant while pregnant or on maternity leave, but not due to the fact that she is pregnant or on maternity leave, the normal test of fairness will apply.

A woman who is made redundant while on maternity leave must be offered a suitable available vacancy with her employer or an associated employer, however inconvenient for the employer.

The second reading of the Pregnancy and Maternity (Redundancy Protection) Bill 2019-21 is scheduled to take place on 12 March 2021.  This Bill aims to simplify current redundancy protections for pregnant women and women on maternity leave by making it automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss a woman by reason of redundancy if the dismissal occurs during pregnancy or maternity leave or the six month period after the end of the pregnancy or maternity leave, unless the employer’s business is closing down in the place where the woman worked or the work she is employed to do is ceasing and she has not been offered suitable alternative employment. Similar protections would also be available for women who experience a stillbirth or miscarriage.

If you would like to discuss any of the above issues, please contact Susan Bernstein, Employment Partner on 020 8349 5480 or by email

Flexible working – Is this the future?

What is flexible working?

Flexible working includes homeworking; part-time working; job share; staggered hours; annual hours; compressed hours (working the same number of hours over a shorter period; and phased retirement. This is not an exhaustive list.

Who can apply for flexible working?

Any employee, whatever their gender, can apply for flexible working provided they have at least 26 weeks’ continuous service.

How should an employee apply for flexible working?

An employee cannot make more than one application to the same employer in 12 months.  The application should be in writing and because it must contain certain information, it is useful to use the government’s application form to be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-right-to-request-flexible-working-form

How should an employer deal with an application for flexible working?

An employer must deal with the application ‘in a reasonable manner’ and notify the employee of the decision within 3 months of the application or any permitted appeal unless a longer period is agreed.  There is an Acas Code of Practice on handling requests in a reasonable manner and there are specified permitted grounds for refusal of an application. However, even if an employer refuses an application on one of the specified grounds, employers should be aware that a refusal may give rise to a discrimination claim if, for example, it unjustifiably refuses a woman’s request to change her hours for childcare reasons.

What should an employer do if its employees have been working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic and now wants to make homeworking (or working partly from home and partly from the employer’s premises) a more permanent arrangement for its employees?

This is likely to constitute a variation of the contract of employment, for which the employees’ consent should be sought.  Employers will need to decide at the start what they would do if any of the employees do not agree to the change as this could make a difference to the procedure they should follow.  The employees’ contracts of employment should be updated (and possibly the employer’s staff handbook) setting out the revised terms resulting from the homeworking arrangements. Such revised terms should include not only a change in place of work but also, for example, confirmation from the employee that they are not in breach of any mortgage or tenancy agreement by working at home and that they will comply with all health and safety and data protection instructions.

Should you require any help or advice arising from any of these issues, please call or send me an email

Covid-19 vaccine – Is this the light at the end of the tunnel for employers?

As the roll-out of mass Covid-19 vaccination gets under way, it has become clear that some employees are reluctant to be vaccinated.  We answer some key questions that employers, who are keen to get staff back in the workplace (whether or not with a combination of ongoing home-working), may be asking:

Can an employer require employees to get the Covid-19 vaccine?

In short, no. The government has not legislated for the vaccine to be mandatory, so on balance it would be risky for employers to insist on vaccination, even in workplaces where there is close contact with vulnerable people, such as in hospitals and care homes. If employers were to try to force their employees to be vaccinated, it could give rise to objections on the grounds of it being an unnecessary invasion of the employee’s entitlement to individual liberty and human rights and may also have criminal implications. Forcing an employee to receive a vaccine injection under duress, could constitute an unlawful injury. A vaccination requires an individual’s informed and voluntary consent.

Can an employer discipline or dismiss an employee who refuses to have a Covid-19 vaccine?

The Acas guidance suggests that a refusal to be vaccinated could, in some situations, result in a disciplinary procedure but this would depend on whether vaccination was necessary for an employee to do their job. The example given by Acas is if staff travel to other countries for work and need vaccinations to enter a country. In most cases, however, disciplining an employee, who refuses to be vaccinated could result in the employee resigning and claiming constructive dismissal. In this situation, as well as any dismissal by the employer of an employee, who did not want to get the Covid-19 vaccine, could give rise to a potentially successful unfair dismissal claim since it is likely that an employment tribunal would find in favour of the employee rather than find it fair to impose what is effectively a medical procedure on employees.

Whereas ordinary unfair dismissal claims require the employee to have a minimum of two years’ continuous employment, there is no qualifying period of employment for an employee to bring a discrimination claim in respect of a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.  For example, the employee may have a health condition that amounts to a disability, such as a serious allergy that prevents them from being vaccinated or they may be pregnant. Alternatively, the employee may be refusing to have a vaccination on religious grounds as it is understood that some vaccines use pig gelatine, which could be problematic for some religions and other philosophical beliefs, such as those held by vegans. It may also be possible that an ardent anti-vaxxer could argue that their stance was protected as a philosophical belief if it is genuinely held and worthy of respect in a democratic society. 

If employees cannot be forced to have the Covid-19 vaccine, how best can they be encouraged?

An employer has an implied duty to take reasonable care of the health and safety of its employees and to take reasonable steps to provide a safe workplace and a safe system of work. If an employee does not want to be vaccinated, the employer should listen to their concerns and be sensitive towards the individual situation.  Employers may find it useful to talk with their staff about the benefits of being vaccinated to encourage voluntary vaccination within their workforce – particularly since evidence suggests that the success of the vaccination in eradicating the spread of the virus will depend on the extent of the take-up.  For health advice about the vaccines, see https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-vaccination/coronavirus-vaccine/

Can those employees, who will not or cannot be vaccinated, be prevented from attending the work-place?

It is understandable that employers will want to avoid the risk of Covid-19 returning to the workplace and continuing to spread amongst those who have not had the vaccination. Accordingly, an employer may decide on health and safety grounds not to permit employees, who have not been vaccinated, to attend the workplace. Such a course of action could potentially give rise to age discrimination claims on the basis that younger employees are unlikely to receive the vaccine until the last phase of immunisation or disability claims if the vaccination is not suitable for an employee due to a medical condition. An unlawful deduction from wages claim might also arise if unvaccinated employees’ pay is affected because they are not permitted to attend work. In view of these issues, employers should consider other alternatives such as working from home and/or regular testing of unvaccinated employees.

Can an employer make an offer of employment conditional upon having had a Covid-19 vaccination?

Potentially yes but the risks of discrimination claims as outlined above could still apply and since most employers anticipate low levels of recruitment for the foreseeable future, it would do little to secure widespread protection.

Do Covid-19 vaccination records need to be kept by an employer in accordance with GDPR and privacy laws?

In order to keep Covid-19 in the workplace under control, employers might want to keep a record of those who have and have not been vaccinated. This will constitute sensitive personal information and the records should comply with GDPR and privacy laws.

For further advice please get in touch with one of our North London Employment solicitors by email or call us on 020 8349 0321.

A Fine Balance – Coronavirus Lockdown Number Three

Although it was an inevitable consequence of a virulent new strain and the coming of winter, Coronavirus lockdown number three is taking its toll on an exhausted population. Despite the vaccine being rolled out at a galloping pace, being stuck at home during the dank, dreary days of mid-winter is filling few people with joy if the comments on internet forums and newspaper op-eds are to be believed.

However, much of the government’s mixed messaging that is causing frustration and confusion is the result of a much stronger and more positive strategy than was present during the March lockdown. Back in those scary days of early 2020, everyone, including scientists, healthcare workers, and politicians had little idea of what they were dealing with. So when a national lockdown was announced, the country (and indeed most of the world) simply shut up shop. Although initial estimates of a 14% drop in national output proved overly pessimistic, the actual figure of around £190 billion (a drop in GDP of 9.5%) was catastrophic for many industries and businesses.

Ten months on we have a better understanding of not only the virus, but how to keep as much of the economy running as possible whilst facilitating the extreme social distancing required. Schools have more children of key workers attending because not only has the definition of key worker been expanded, but fewer businesses are furloughing staff. The property market, construction, manufacturing – industries that ground to a halt in March, April, and May 2020 are continuing to operate. Furthermore, as always happens in a crisis, people quickly adapt and hunt out opportunities. Many small businesses have taken advantage of their agility and moved online and/or sought new markets abroad, resulting in some being busier now than they were pre-pandemic.

In light of the current dynamic situation, below are some factors which employers need to be aware of regarding the Job Retention Scheme and health and safety compliance, including pitfalls to watch out for.

Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (the Furlough Scheme) and government-backed loans

In December 2020, the Chancellor, Rishi Sunak announced that the Furlough Scheme, in which the government pays 80% of a furloughed employee’s wages, will continue to the end of April 2021. Businesses will also be given until the end of March to access the Bounce Back Loan Scheme, Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme, and the Coronavirus Large Business Interruption Loan Scheme.

Watch out for – furlough fraud

Alongside the extension of the Furlough Scheme a parallel project is being run by HMRC to claw back funds that should not have been claimed during the first lockdown. Make sure you follow the rules of the scheme diligently, the most important being that furloughed employees must not work. To mitigate your risk of an HMRC investigation, ensure that you keep up to date records of who is receiving furlough payments and the funds distributed. The other area of concern is the rampant furlough fraud being committed by organised criminal gangs. Protect your business from being unwittingly caught up in such fraud by having documented new customer and supplier due diligence policies and procedures in place and communicated to all staff. In addition, rigorously monitor your business accounts/investments for any unusual activity.

Manging Coronavirus risks in the workplace

If your employees cannot work from home you must conduct a Coronavirus health and safety risk assessment at your premises/s and implement policies and procedures to ensure your staff and the public are protected. Not doing so could result in your organisation and its directors facing a regulatory investigation, personal injury or employment law claims, and even prosecution.

Acas advice regarding keeping your workplace safe is regularly updated. At a minimum, all employers should have regard to eight priority actions designed to protect employees and customers:

  • Complete a Coronavirus risk assessment and share it with all staff.
  • Encourage staff to wash their hands regularly, provide hand sanitisers, and clean surfaces frequently.
  • Help with social distancing by putting a one-way walk system in place for staff and customers.
  • Ensure that face coverings are worn by anyone visiting your workplace (unless they are medically exempt).
  • Keep your workplace well ventilated. The HSE has provided excellent guidance on this.
  • If applicable to your business, follow the legal requirement to keep a record of staff and customers attending your workplace and ensure that your method of data collection is compliant with the NHS track and trace system.
  • Consider the mental health of you and your employees. Public Health England has produced useful guides on steps to improve mental health during this turbulent time.
  • If an employee is required to self-isolate they must do so. Under the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) Regulations 2020, employers have a legal obligation to ensure staff they know have tested positive for Covid-19 or have been in close contact with somebody who has, do not come to work. Failure to comply with this law can result in a £1,000 fine for the first offence, rising to £10,000 for repeated offences. Workers must also inform employers if they are required to self-isolate.

Watch out for – breaching your duty of care to homeworkers

All employers have a duty of care to protect the health, safety, and wellbeing of their employees and visitors to their workplace. This includes homeworkers. Ensure that you have homeworking staff conduct a risk assessment relating to their workstation setup. HSE has provided a useful checklist for this. Also, keep in regular contact with homeworkers to make sure they are not feeling isolated and stressed. Out of sight, out of mind could result in a future Employment Tribunal claim so check in regularly and give all employees a point of contact who they can call if they need support.

The government’s aggressive rollout of the vaccination programme provides hope that this will be the last big lockdown we have to battle through. For employers, navigating the ever-changing laws and guidance is a challenge in itself. Our team is here to support you and provide bespoke advice for your business. The cliché “it is always darkest before dawn” has been regularly bandied about over the past few weeks, but in this case, it is likely to be true.

To make an appointment to discuss any aspect of employment law please email or phone our helpdesk on (0)20 8349 0321.

The Impact of the New UK lockdown restrictions for UK Businesses

From the 5th of November, new national restrictions have been imposed across the UK. These measures will undoubtedly have an impact on UK businesses and the economy at large. In this post, our north london employment solicitors outline some of the potential implications of these changes to the markets while looking at potential employment issues this could cause for businesses in the UK. 

UK Business Closures

Following the latest lockdown announcement from the Government regarding the closure of businesses in the UK, there will be an obvious impact on the business economy. The Government has requested that all employees who can work from work continue to do so. However, there are many businesses and venues that have been ordered to close completely.

The top-level summary of these business includes those mentioned below; and while there are certain caveats to some of these organizations keeping their doors open for vital community services, the business owners and their local economies will be impacted for at least a month, with much speculation that this period of closure could indeed last for longer than the initial 4-week plan.

  • Non-essential retailers
  • Hospitality venues
  • Accommodations
  • Sports and Leisure facilities
  • Entertainment venues
  • Community halls and centres
  • Personal care facilities
  • Places of worship

Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme Update

The current CJRS was due to end on the 31st of October but has since been extended into December.

UK Furlough Scheme Latest Information – the 5th of November

The Government has now announced a five-month extension to the furlough scheme, meaning this will now last until Spring 2021. This is designed to give workers a certain amount of certainty over the winter and is designed to help protect millions of jobs in the UK. While this news is positive, employers in the UK still have many questions about what this means for them and for their businesses.

This next section is a summary from our of some of the most asked questions from UK employers about the furlough scheme extension from our finchley based employment solicitors:

Does my business need to have used the CJRS before in order to use it again?

No. In order to be eligible for the scheme, an employee will need to be on the PAYE payroll as of 23:59 on the 30th of October. You must have made an RTI submission to HMRC by this date.

What costs will employers need to pay under the extended CRJS?

The Government will pay 80% of any eligible wages for hours unworked, up to a maximum of £2,500. Employers are still responsible for paying any pension and national insurance contributions for the unworked hours.

Can staff now be furloughed if they weren’t previously?

Yes, as long as they were on the PAYE payroll by the deadline of 23:59 on the 30th of October, and provided the employer meets the eligibility requirements, this is fine. This means that any new starters or staff members who were not previously furloughed can indeed be included in this scheme.

If staff were due to return to work are unable to do so, what action should employers take?

If you have members of your team who were due to make a return to work but are now unable to do so, the key element for employers to consider is communication. As we are facing somewhat unprecedented times, it is good practice to speak to your employees over the phone or via video conference as soon as possible. Avoid sending emails as a primary form of communication, and be prepared to answer their questions or listen to their concerns. Always follow up key conversations with emails or letters, but in the first instance, take the time to reach out and answer their questions via phone or VC. Supporting the well-being of your staff at this time is going to be key, and regular catch-ups or team meetings over video conference is a good way to do this.

If I made someone redundant, can I bring them back and furlough them?

There is no clear guidance on this subject from the Government at this point. Although the original furlough scheme did allow employers to rehire staff who had been made redundant, the current guidance does not make it clear whether this will or will not be included just yet.

Is flexible furloughing still possible under the new CJRS scheme?

As with the current scheme, both full-time and flexible furloughing will be possible. So, for those employers looking to bring back staff on a part-time basis, it is possible to do this and use the furlough scheme for the unworked hours.

We would expect there to be further updates to the furlough scheme. These are the most prominent questions we’re hearing from people at the moment. Although the last-minute announcement didn’t give businesses much time to plan for these changes, they have confirmed that they will not extend the furlough scheme again. Rishi Sunak also confirmed that the furlough scheme would be reviewed in January once a review of the economic situation had been undertaken. 

Self-Employment Income Support Scheme Latest Information

Support for the millions of self-employed workers across the country has already been reviewed, and there will be a third grant offered at an increased rate to the previous grant. It will cover the period from November through to January and is to be calculated at 80% of the average trading profits, up to a maximum amount of £7,500.

Further information on the announcements made by the Government on the 5th of November can be found on this economic support factsheet.

Redundancy fears as the Furlough Scheme comes to an end

In March 2020, Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced an unprecedented government-sponsored furlough scheme designed to protect jobs during the pandemic. The scheme meant that the UK government would pay the 80% salaries of furloughed workers up to a maximum of £2,500 a month, in a bid to prevent job losses while lockdown restrictions meant that companies across the country couldn’t operate as usual.

As restrictions are lifted, the scheme is set to come to an end on October 31st. Without the government’s furlough pay, many people in the UK worry that businesses will start cutting jobs in the weeks leading up to this date. If companies either aren’t operating at full capacity or aren’t making the same income they were before the pandemic, it’s easy to see why job losses might be the likely outcome.

How has the UK fared so far?

2020 has already taken a toll on the UK’s employment levels. Since March, the number of employers in the UK planning 20 or more redundancies has consistently been at least twice as many as in the same month in 2019. 695,000 UK workers have been cut from the payrolls of UK companies since lockdown hit, and many more could be set to join them once the furlough scheme ends.

Sunak has repeatedly ruled out an extension of the furlough scheme beyond October, but what does this mean for the coming months? The Trades Union Congress general secretary Frances O’Grady thinks government intervention is the only way out, saying: “If the government doesn’t act, we face a tsunami of job losses”, which was backed by governor of the Bank of England Andrew Bailey who suggested some sectors would benefit from further help, having previously backed the decision end the scheme in August.

Does employment law offer any protection from redundancy?

It’s possible to challenge a redundancy with proper legal advice, although if your employer is making you redundant alongside many other employees as part of Covid-19 cuts, it’s unlikely your appeal will be upheld. However, some protections are in place: you are still entitled to the full 45 days redundancy notice, and the government has recently brought in a new law to ensure that furloughed employees receive redundancy payments based on their full salaries, rather than their furloughed salaries.

For help and advice on matters relating to employment law, please get in touch with our employment team today

Employees returning from parental leave continue to be eligible for furlough scheme

Employees returning from statutory maternity and paternity leave in the next few months will remain eligible for furlough through the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS).

Since 10 June, it has no longer been possible to furlough an employee for the first time, with the Government set to introduce part-time furlough from 1 July onwards. To facilitate this, the scheme will only be available to employers that are using the CJRS and employees that have previously been furloughed.

Because workers must complete 21 days of furlough to be eligible for part-time furlough, this means that the cut-off date for employees to be placed on furlough leave was Wednesday 10 June.

However, employees returning from parental leave will be eligible for the CJRS as they return to work, with further details set to be announced by the Government imminently.

The CJRS has helped more than one million employers so far, with more than one quarter of the UK workforce being furloughed.

Rishi Sunak, Chancellor of the Exchequer, said: “When I announced these changes to the furlough scheme last month, I was clear that we wanted to do this in a fair way, that supports people back to work as the country begins to re-open following coronavirus.

“But for parents returning from leave, their circumstances has meant that they are still in need of support, and I’m pleased that they will be able to receive the financial assistance they and their family will need.”