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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll