What suggestions do you have to raise the profile of the MHFA group in an organisation, particularly with agile working?

• Yes, if contributions to a defined contribution (“DC”) scheme exceed statutory minimum for auto-enrolment purposes, it may be possible to reduce employer contributions to the statutory minimum, but not further.
• However, the processes required for reduction of DC employer contributions will necessitate obtaining legal advice:
  • Reducing employer contributions may require changes to the employment contracts of affected staff (as does the furlough process).
  • Reducing employer contributions may also require negotiation with trade unions or other staff representative forums.
  • Where group personal pensions are used, the contractual format may not permit changes of employer contributions, and hence it may also be necessary to enter into a new contractual arrangement. Choosing a new group personal pension plan is a not insignificant task in itself.
  • Employers with at least 50 employees are required to conduct a 60-day consultation process with affected employees if they propose to reduce employer contributions (but please see below).
  • Finally, it may require a change to the scheme rules and engagement with the scheme trustees if the scheme is operated under trust.
• For DB schemes, specific considerations apply (see the last section, below).

Employers will need to be flexible with employees who are unable to return to work at present due to childcare difficulties. While schools have reopened, a period of isolation may result in employees having to keep children off school/nursery and therefore have childcare issues. Some employees will be able to manage this with their partner and extended family, whereas others will not. Where an employee simply cannot make any other arrangements to care for their children in the short term then they will be unable to return to work until that situation changes. Any dismissals on the basis that someone is unable to return to work as a result of lack of childcare are likely to be unfair, at least in the short term where such employees may well be able to demonstrate that they had no options available to them.

You cannot include the following payments in a claim:

• Discretionary bonus or commission payments
• Tips
• Non-cash payments
• Non-monetary benefits including taxable benefits in kind
• Salary sacrifice benefits that reduce an employee’s pay (however HMRC has agreed that such arrangements can be stopped by agreement if due to COVID-19 and the contract is changed)

The updated guidance has confirmed that all of the grant claimed should be paid to the employee in the form of money and that none of the grant is to the used to pay for the provision of benefits or a salary sacrifice scheme.

The reporting requirements relating to cases of, or deaths from, COVID-19 under RIDDOR apply only to occupational exposure, that is, as a result of a person’s work.

You should only make a report under RIDDOR when one of the following circumstances applies:

• an accident or incident at work has, or could have, led to the release or escape of coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). This must be reported as a dangerous occurrence
• a person at work (a worker) has been diagnosed as having COVID-19 attributed to an occupational exposure to coronavirus. This must be reported as a case of disease
• a worker dies as a result of occupational exposure to coronavirus. This must be reported as a work-related death due to exposure to a biological agent

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.