Can an employee in a public facing role refuse to interact with a customer who is not wearing a face mask?
In some circumstances, visitors and customers are required to wear face coverings, such as those travelling on public transport, shoppers and museum visitors. The government guidance states that:
- businesses must remind people to wear face coverings where mandated; and
- premises where face coverings are required should take reasonable steps to promote compliance with the law.
As part of their duty of care to employees and to uphold a relationship of mutual trust and confidence, employers should consider how employees can ensure that visitors and customers comply with the rules and provide their staff with guidance. They must also seek ways to protect their employees both from the risks of those customers not wearing face masks and potential abuse from customers or visitors who decline to wear a face covering. This may include having signs in place requiring customers and visitors to wear a mask and allowing staff to refuse to serve customers if they do not follow the rules.
However, it is ultimately the responsibility of the police, security and public transport officials to remove customers from premises where they are not complying with the rules on face coverings.
The police and Transport for London have been given greater powers by the government to take measures if the public do not comply with the law relating to face coverings without a valid exemption, such as refusing to wear a face covering. This includes issuing fines which have now been increased to £200 for the first offence (and £100 if paid within 14 days). Transport operators can also deny access to their public transport services if a passenger is not wearing a face covering, or direct them to wear one or leave a service.
Related FAQs
Hosted by The North East England Chamber of Commerce, this webinar discussed practical advice on Covid-19 and the specific challenges for International Trade.
Partner Damien Charlton along with Andrew Needham,from Haines Watts and Grant Murray from XE Finance, provided an update on the challenges and potential solutions in their field, as well as a look forward for the “New Normal”.
To watch the full recording, please click here or to view the slides, please click here.
Yes, but as a last resort. In summary, the law requires employers:
- to assess the workplace risks posed to new or expectant mothers or their babies;
- to alter the employee’s working conditions or hours of work to avoid any significant risk to them;
- where it is not reasonable to alter working conditions or hours, or would not avoid the risk, to offer suitable alternative work on terms that are not “substantially less favourable”;
- where suitable alternative work is not available, or the employee reasonably refuses it, the employer should consider whether it is appropriate to suspend the employee on full pay.
All three of the PPNs are effective immediately and apply to the following Contracting Authorities:
- Central Government Departments
- Executive agencies
- Non-departmental public bodies
- Local authorities
- NHS bodies
- The wider public sector
In regards to PPN03/20, those in scope organisations that do not currently use procurement cards are advised to immediately put in place arrangements using the relevant Crown Commercial Service Agreement (Lot 2 of RM3828 Payment Solutions).
Partner at Ward Hadaway Adrian Ballam catches up with corporate finance expert and CBILS specialist Chris Silverwood (CorpFin and cashflow.co.uk) a month after their initial conversation to talk about what the last couple of months have taught us about access to finance.
Sections of the video and their timings are as follows:
(01.06) – example of continuing appetite for certain businesses (e.g. tech sector)
(02.06) – conflict between incumbent bank and different CBILS lenders, plus brief discussion of CBILS II
(05.36) – bounce back loans have been a distraction
(06.27) – muted impact of fintech CBILS lenders
(07.52) – discussion about invoice discounting
(11.59) – looming insolvency environment
(12:52) – emerging themes
The outbreak is certainly going to have an impact on new lease negotiations.
Undoubtedly many transactions will be put on hold or indeed stop entirely. Where matters are ongoing, tenants may well look to strengthen rent suspension provision.
It is also possible that tenants and their representatives will also now seek to include termination rights for unseen events. In this regard, the concept of force majeure may start to appear more often in leases.
In both of the examples above, such attempts are not likely to be well received from landlords who will undoubtedly suggest that tenants ensure that their business interruption insurance policies are robust enough to protect the tenant in the event of any future pandemic events.
Another approach tenants might adopt going forwards in negotiations for a new lease (or indeed seeking to vary existing leases), is to move away from the traditional market rent model to a turnover rent arrangement. This will offer some protection going forward if trading conditions deteriorate, but again getting institutional landlords to agree such an approach may prove difficult.