Can I require employees to take holiday during furlough?
Yes. Government guidance now confirms that employers can be required to take holiday during a period of furlough, so long as they are given minimum notice to do so. The notice required is double the length of the holiday.
Employers are also able to cancel employees’ holidays (or require them not to take holiday) if they are on furlough, for example if they are not in a position to pay the additional 20% top up to their normal wages (or more where they earn in excess of the £2,500 monthly cap on furlough payments). Again, employers are required to provide a minimum period of notice of cancellation, which in this case, is the length of the planned holiday.
Employers can ask employees to take or cancel holiday with less notice but they would need to get their agreement to do so.
Government guidance has been updated to state that “Employees should not be placed on furlough for a period simply because they are on holiday for that period.” If a period of furlough happens to coincide with an employee’s holiday then you should ensure that there are business grounds to support furlough being used in that instance so that it isn’t just being used as a means to fund holiday utilisation.
Related FAQs
The latest Cabinet Office guidance published Monday 6 April 2020 titled ‘Procurement Policy Note PPN 02/20: Additional guidance. FAQs and model terms for construction’ provides model deeds of variation for JCT and NEC3 contracts to provide for such payments to be made. As the Cabinet Office guidance states, legal advice is likely to be required to make sure that the model variations work with your specific contracts. Please contact one of our construction specialists if you need advice and assistance.
For a copy of the guidance note click here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/878338/PPN_02_20._Additional_guidance__FAQS_and_model_terms_for_construction.pdf
As the project progresses, it is important to continually monitor the contractor’s performance. Any one or more of the items below can be early warning signs that the contractor is in financial difficulty, and that further actions may be necessary:
- Decrease in labour or contractor’s personnel on site, and/or rapid turnover of contractor’s personnel
- Slowdown in progress on site
- Plant, equipment or materials suddenly disappearing from site for no apparent reason – unpaid subcontractors may unilaterally decide to remove items from site regardless of their contractual rights to do so
- An increasing number of defects and reduction in the quality of the contractor’s work
- The contractor seeking changes in the payment arrangements, and in particular early payments
- The contractor making spurious claims or contra charges
- The contractor seeking assignment of its benefit of the building contract
- Late filing of accounts by the contractor at Companies House
- Unsatisfied court judgements against the contractor
- Subcontractors and suppliers not being paid or being paid late
- Rumours in the press, in the industry, on site or elsewhere regarding the solvency of the contractor
- Unusual visits to site, for example from the contractor’s senior management or other personnel who had not previously been present or are not expected to be present
- Increasingly aggressive behaviour by the contractor
- The contractor’s parent company or another company within the contractor’s group displaying any of the above signs
See above FAQ about whether you can demand that your employee has the vaccine.
Dismissal for failing to follow a reasonable instruction would be a possibility but it should be the last resort.
First you will need to be able to show that you have reasonable grounds for insisting that they have the vaccine. You will then need to demonstrate that you have taken into consideration the reasons why the employee has refused and why they are not considered reasonable. Before taking a decision to dismiss you should look at alternatives such as other duties/other roles.
The Act was obviously subject to much debate and criticism as the Bill passed through Parliament. It is difficult to properly assess any gaps until after the necessary secondary legislation has been published and comes into force (along with the remainder of the Act), but some of the likely issues include:
- The impact on the insurance market, and the (lack of) availability and increased cost of insurance in light of the provisions of the Act
- How the introduction of retrospective claims will affect the market, both in relation to how parties might go about trying to prove matters which are 30 years old, but also the lack of certainty for those potentially on the receiving end of these claims which they previously had by virtue of the Limitation Act provisions
- Whether the definition of higher risk buildings is correct, or will require some refinement.
The Martlet v Mulalley case provides some useful observations and clarifications, for example that designers cannot necessarily rely on a ‘lemming’ defence that they were simply doing what others were doing at the time, that ‘waking watch’ costs are generally recoverable, and commentary on certain specific Building Regulations. The judgment however made clear that much of the case turned on its specific facts, so it is useful from the perspective of providing some insight as to how the Courts will deal with cladding disputes in future, rather than setting significant precedents to be followed.
Employers have a statutory right to require employees to take annual leave at their direction, subject to providing staff with notice equal to at least double the length of the leave that you are directing them to take (e.g. 10 days’ notice for five days leave). However, this measure is not likely to achieve any urgent cost savings or alleviate immediate cash-flow pressure as holidays would need to be paid.
Clearly, annual leave can be taken on furlough so you could have staff on furlough and annual leave.