What does this mean for my business?
The guidance is helpful and is likely to be useful to businesses as they seek to respond to the crisis and to restart their business activities as lockdown is eased. However, there remain outstanding questions. For example, can collaboration to prevent widespread insolvencies be viewed as in the interest of consumers? Businesses need to remain aware of the extremely high stakes involved in relation to competition law. Businesses contemplating collaboration with competitors should take legal advice before doing so.
Related FAQs
Yes.
An employer which is aware that a worker or agency worker is or ought to be self-isolating, should not knowingly allow that worker or agency worker to leave the place that they are self-isolating in (“the designated place”). To do so without reasonable excuse would amount to an offence which could result in the employer being issued with a fixed penalty notice.
The value of the fixed penalty varies depending on if it is the first or subsequent fixed penalty notice to be issued:
| First fixed penalty notice | £1,000 |
| Second fixed penalty notice | £2,000 |
| Third fixed penalty notice | £4,000 |
| Fourth, and any subsequent fixed penalty notice | £10,000 |
Employers had until 31 July 2020 to make any claims for claim periods up to 30 June 2020. That was the end of the old scheme.
From 1 July 2020, claim periods must start and end within the same calendar month and must be for at least 7 days unless you are claiming for the first few days or the last few days in a month.
You can only claim for a period of fewer than 7 days if the period you are claiming for includes either the first or last day of the calendar month, and you have already claimed for the period ending immediately before it.
For example, if an employee is furloughed for 7 days spanning a month. You can claim the last 3 in one month, and 4 from the next.
The crucial point is that you cannot make claims that cross calendar months.
The first time that you could make a claim for days in July 2020 was 1 July 2020. You could not claim for periods in July 2020 before this point.
Employees on any type of employment contract including full-time, part-time, agency, flexible or zero hours and foreign nationals who are eligible to work in the UK on any visa can be furloughed subject to the following excluded categories:
- Anyone who was not employed prior to 30 October 2020
- Anyone for whom you haven’t made a PAYE Real Time Information submission to HMRC between 20 March 2020 and 30 October 2020.
- Employees who are working but on reduced hours or for reduced pay
- Employees currently receiving SSP (see FAQ on SSP and self-isolation below)
- Public sector employees
- Employees of businesses or organisations in receipt of public funding for staff costs (except for those who are not primarily funded by the government and whose staff cannot be redeployed to assist with the Covid-19 response)
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.
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.