Who is liable to pay the fine for not wearing a face mask at work, the employer or the employee?
If an employee is required under government guidance to wear a face mask during the course of their employment and there is no applicable exemption, any fine issued would be payable by the employee, not the employer.
Related FAQs
The Act is intended to facilitate the rescue of businesses that are in financial difficulty by preventing suppliers from invoking certain termination clauses under a supply contract, and therefore maintaining supply of goods and services to the business whilst plans to save the business can be considered.
Supply contracts often contain a clause enabling them to terminate the contract, or take other steps such as requiring payment in advance, in the event that the customer enters an insolvency procedure.
This new Act removes any such contractual right by dis-applying any clause that allows the supplier to terminate the contract, or take any other step, due to the customer entering an insolvency process.
Suppliers are also prevented from demanding payment for pre-insolvency debts owed by the customer as a condition of continued supply.
Additionally, where the supplier had a contractual right to terminate the contract due to an event occurring before the customer went into the insolvency process (whether or not linked to payment issues), the supplier loses this right for the duration of the insolvency process.
Given the impact the Coronavirus is going to have upon the commercial property market, landlords will undoubtedly, as a matter of good commercial sense, will have to seriously entertain approaches from tenants seeking a rent suspension – notwithstanding there is no entitlement to the same under their lease.
Some landlords may decide it is better to waive or suspend rental payments over the short term rather than face their tenants going out of business and leaving them with an empty building in a flat or dead market.
A measure falling short of a rent suspension would be for the tenants to negotiate with their landlord’s monthly payments of rent rather than quarterly and for those monthly payments to be in payments arrears, rather than in advance.
Ultimately closing a service will be a decision that is taken at the highest level and that decision will depend on risk appetite. Often these types of higher risk are mitigated by way of insurance but that still depends on an insurer being willing to accept that risk. This decision will depend on accepting a known risk and its consequences.
We hope that all organisations will come out of lockdown successfully. However, the current economic crisis means that many organisations will face very difficult trading conditions.
Employment costs are one of, if not the, largest cost to your organisation. These costs will have an effect on your financial well-being – and many organisations are now considering how to reduce employment costs. That said, your workforce is also your most important asset and as we get back to business, you will need your workforce to run the organisation, produce your goods, deliver your services and deal with your customers.
As a result, many organisations are facing a very difficult situation – how to reduce or flex the cost of the workforce whilst also maintaining an ability to service customers. This difficulty is enhanced by the uncertainty of when the pandemic will be controlled and the threat of lockdowns end.
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.