Skip to content

If, after deploying all control measures the risk is still deemed too great for employees to work safely, then what should employers do?

The law says that if after assessing a risk and considering all the control measures available to you, you cannot undertake a task safely – then you should not undertake the task.

If that means taking BAME workers out of higher risk frontline work, that is what will have to be done.

Beware of workers saying “we’ll accept the risk” – it does not protect you against regulatory/enforcement action or civil claims.

Related FAQs

What are the changes to the law?

On 25th June 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act, among other things, introduced new restrictions on suppliers of goods and services to terminate the contract in the event that the customer enters an insolvency process.  This has very important consequences for many businesses as it could expose them to greater financial risks.

One of my employees has contracted Covid-19, should I report it under RIDDOR?

You must only make a report under RIDDOR (The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013) when:

  • An unintended incident at work has led to someone’s possible or actual exposure to coronavirus. This must be reported as a dangerous occurrence
  • A worker has been diagnosed as having COVID 19 and there is reasonable evidence that it was caused by exposure at work. This must be reported as a case of disease
  • A worker dies as a result of occupational exposure to coronavirus.
How have competition law rules been relaxed in the light of the coronavirus outbreak?

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has issued a number of guidance documents about the application of competition law rules during the coronavirus outbreak. In general, the competition law rules are being relaxed in very specific circumstances.

What is the Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme?

All employers in the UK are eligible to participate in the scheme. The purpose of the scheme is to allow employers to claim back employment costs if they have furloughed employees arising from the coronavirus crisis. Importantly this means the scheme is not limited to cases where the employee would otherwise have been made redundant.

Key points:

  • Between 1 November 2020 – 30 June 2021, the government will reimburse employers for 80% of wage costs, up to a cap of £2,500 per month, with employers expected to contribute 10% of that 80% in July 2021 and 20% of that 80% in August and September 2021. Employers will still need to pay employer NICs and employer pension contributions (these cannot be claimed for).
  • The scheme now also allows employees to return to work part time being on furlough for the remainder. See flexible furlough above for more information.
  • The employer can agree to pay the employee more than it will be reimbursed but it cannot reclaim the additional amount or any other costs associated with the additional amount.
  • The workers covered by the scheme are those who have been “furloughed” which is a leave of absence.
  • Workers must be told about and agree to this change of status (see below).
  • Employers have to continue to pay the furloughed workers and the Government will reimburse the employer.
  • HMRC is administering the scheme and it has been extended until the end of September 2021
  • Those who left employment and are re-employed and subsequently furloughed by agreement are eligible (please see the FAQ regarding redundancy and furlough above).
  • Payments may be withheld if claims are based on inaccurate or dishonest information, or are found to be fraudulent. HMRC has put in place an online hotline for employees and the general public to report suspected fraudulent claims.
  • The Government has made alternative help available for employers to continue to pay employees while the scheme is set up.
The employee I need to consider suspending is a doctor – do I have to follow MHPS

Yes probably in our opinion, even if you are not considering taking any formal action against them. Ultimately if a doctor is suspended this could be considered as causing them reputational damage and it therefore is correct that they are afforded the protections (in particular in relation to keeping exclusion/suspension under review) of MHPS. Under Part V of MHPS there is provision for excluding practitioners if they are a danger to patients and they refuse to recognise it or if they refuse to co-operate. It doesn’t refer to a particular risk for the practitioner themselves, but it would appear logical that it would apply.