header-logo header-logo

COVID-19: Heed concerns, employers told

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll