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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll