Can house builders, solicitors, banks and estate agents still operate?
Yes. The Government continues to support the construction industry and the Prime Minister’s recent statement supports the return to work of those who cannot work from home, if they can work safely. This has seen an immediate surge in industry workforce returning to work. Banks and storage and distribution businesses are permitted to operate as essential businesses.
Solicitors and estate agents may still not permit members of the public to enter their premises, but can operate remotely via website, phone, email and other methods, as normal. The Government’s latest guidance published on 13 May now advises that moving house need not be postponed, provided social distancing and safe ways of working can be adopted. Restrictions remain for those who are infected or who are self-isolating or vulnerable, and they should not move house or accept visitors.
Related FAQs
It is the individual assessment by an organisation of its Covid-19 risk in its workplace that will be central. There may be common features across sites or areas of a site but every workplace will have a different risk profile depending on the service it offers and the workers who deliver those services. No one size fits all.
The context of managing Covid-19 risk is the need to tie in with UK government guidance and HSE advice – which despite being a lot more comprehensive than it was, is not a panacea and will continue to evolve. The difficulty we have with this in the context of the known increased risk to BAME employees from Covid-19 is that our understanding of the risk is, we would suggest, at a pretty early stage which makes it more difficult to address. However we know the increased risk exists and we owe our BAME workers a duty to manage that risk and keep them safe.
We also have a duty to consult employees. This is critical in managing this risk – ensuring BAME workers have a loud voice in the assessment process will be very important.
Where an individual has a particular characteristic, for instance they’re pregnant, they have physical or mental disabilities etc, the law requires us to look at that individual or, where it is a group, that group of individuals and assess the risk to them and take any reasonably practicable steps to control the risk to them.
Risk control hierarchy is key. In “normal” businesses we reduce our Covid-19 risk by keeping people away from the workplace – “avoid, eliminate and substitute” then changing work practices (e.g. social distancing measures) before we arrive at PPE. In a healthcare context, we arrive at PPE a lot more quickly.
We need to ensure our people are given sufficient information, instruction and training so they can do their jobs safely and we must consult workers and involve them in workplace safety – this is going to be critical in the context of Covid-19.
A quicker and more cost-effective option may be the involvement of the police given their recent allocation of emergency powers to disperse, fine or even arrest persons who flout these rules. Nevertheless, it appears that the Court is willing to support housing providers in their efforts to tackle anti-social behaviour during this time.
This is critical. The guidance remains clear – IF YOU CAN WORK FROM HOME YOU SHOULD CONTINUE TO DO SO. Bringing people back into work unnecessarily is a big mistake.
Think about how many employees should physically return to the workplace – the fewer the people on site, the lower the risk AND the less pressure on public transport.
Employers will need to be very careful to recognise workers in vulnerable groups or who develop or live in a household with someone who develops symptoms of Covid-19 – again, look at government guidelines. You should understand that this will mean a higher number of staff absences and consider how this might be managed.
Look to keep smaller teams of workers together, minimise physical meetings and if you MUST have them, keep them short and under 15 minutes. Be imaginative – use online platforms like Teams and Zoom wherever you can.
Put simply, if it is a requirement of a particular role that PPE is worn, then this should be provided to the employee. If an employer dismissed an employee for refusal to carry out their role due to lack of PPE then this is likely to be an automatically unfair health and safety dismissal.
Furthermore, anyone who is subject to a detriment as a result of raising a health and safety concern, e.g. someone in this situation who refuses to work due to lack of PPE and is sent home without pay, will also have a potentially valid claim in the Employment Tribunal for that detriment, even if they are not dismissed.
- On admission to critical care, the risks, benefits and likely outcomes of the different treatment options should be discussed with patients, families and carers so they can make informed decisions about their treatment wherever possible.
- A member of the critical care team should be involved in these discussions whenever the patient or team needs advice about critical care to make decisions about treatment.