Can you require an employee to tell their employer whether they have been tested for coronavirus/the results of that test?
Yes, this is very likely to amount to a reasonable management instruction which is put in place for public health reasons. Employers should make it clear to their employees that this is something they are required to do and that if they fail to do so this may lead to disciplinary action.
Related FAQs
- Employee pensions contributions are often paid by way of salary sacrifice arrangements.
- Use of such arrangements may reduce the amount of wage an employer can claim under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, as the reimbursement is calculated by reference to an employee’s actual pay as at 28 February 2020, hence post sacrifice pay.
- Using the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme does not in itself bring a salary sacrifice arrangement to an end, but where an employer wishes to maximise the amount of an employee’s pay that will be covered by the CJRS, the employer and employee(s) concerned may agree to terminate the salary sacrifice arrangement as part of furlough. HMRC has recently announced that the Covid-19 pandemic will be considered a “life event” (i.e. one of the permitted reasons to break a salary sacrifice arrangement mid-term), if the employment contract is updated accordingly.
As a result of the CJRS being extended, the Job Retention Bonus will no longer be paid in February 2021.
No. This bill relates to corporate insolvencies only. Should you require any advice as to personal insolvency situations, please contact our team.
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.
Because they all have devolved governments, when there are changes to spending levels in England, the Government makes adjustments to the amount of public expenditure allotted to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In this case £60 million will be made available for all of the devolved administrations as a result of the £370 million funding allocated to charities in England. This is broken down as follows:
- £30 million for the Scottish Government
- £20 million for Welsh Government
- £10 million for the Northern Ireland Executive
There may be further allocations, dependent on the final projects funded, through the £360 million direct grant pot.