Coronavirus and the workplace – twelve key questions

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.0.100″ background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” custom_padding=”|||” global_module=”2165″ saved_tabs=”all”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.27.4″ background_layout=”dark” custom_margin=”0px|||” custom_padding=”0px|||”]

Employment Law News

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.22.3″][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”3.25″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.2.2″ text_orientation=”justified” hover_enabled=”0″ use_border_color=”off”]

Coronavirus and the workplace – twelve key questions

The Government has declared the coronavirus to be a “serious and imminent threat to public health” and that it is highly likely that the virus will become widespread.  Indeed, it has been estimated that up to one fifth of the UK workforce may be off sick at the peak of an epidemic.  Employers need to take steps to protect their workers and be ready to deal with the disruption that the coronavirus will cause.  In this briefing, we consider twelve frequently asked questions from employers.

  1. None of our employees have the coronavirus – do we need to do anything?

Yes.  Even if there are no instances of the coronavirus in your workplace, you must still take steps to meet your legal duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of your workers.  This duty requires you not to expose people to material risks and this includes risks posed by the coronavirus.  You should assess and document risks generally for all workers and specifically for those who are vulnerable to the coronavirus (e.g. those with underlying respiratory problems, heart conditions, diabetes, cancer and older workers).  Special consideration should also be given to any specific risks to pregnant workers, those who have given birth in the last 6 months or who are breast feeding.

You will be expected to take reasonable steps to control or eliminate identified risks.  The Government’s latest guidance for employers highlights that the virus is most likely to spread by touching or standing close to an affected person and, possibly, by touching contaminated surfaces and then touching the face.  Risk control measures could include steps such as:

  • Circulating the Government’s latest guidance to staff and giving them a point of contact within the business to discuss any concerns.
  • Reminding staff about the recommended hygiene measures.
  • Discouraging physical forms of greetings such as handshakes and kisses.
  • Temporarily banning attendance at non-essential meetings, conferences and social events.
  • Cancelling any large gatherings such as internal conferences or parties.
  • Providing plenty of free tissues and additional bins.
  • Providing access to anti-bacterial handwash and hand sanitiser.
  • Providing anti-bacterial surface spray or wipes in kitchen and eating areas;
  • Engaging additional cleaning services.
  • Designating a special area for breastfeeding mothers to wash and store breast pump equipment and expressed milk.
  • Designating a special area for anyone who is displaying symptoms of coronavirus whilst at work.
  • Allowing vulnerable workers and pregnant workers to work from home.
  • Allowing other staff to work from home wherever possible.
  1. One of our employees feels unwell and thinks they might have the coronavirus – what should we do?

If the employee is at work, they should immediately be removed to an isolated area until they are able to go home.  The Government’s latest guidance is that such individuals should not go to a GP or hospital and nor should they contact NHS 111 for advice.  Currently, such individuals will not be tested for the coronavirus.  The employee will need to self-isolate for 7 or 14 days depending on their household arrangements (see 8 below).

The Government’s advice is that employers in this situation do not need to take any special measures such as sending staff home or deep cleaning the workplace.  This is because most suspected cases turn out to be negative.

  1. One of our employees has been in direct contact with someone who has a confirmed case of the coronavirus – what should we do?

The employee should be advised to call NHS 111 for advice.  They will probably be advised to self-isolate for 14 days even if they are displaying no symptoms.  If they subsequently become unwell, they should contact NHS 111 for reassessment, and they may be tested for the virus.  If the test result is negative, the employee will be advised to remain in self-isolation until 14 days has passed.  However, you won’t need to take any special measures.

  1. One of our employees has been diagnosed with the coronavirus – what should we do?

The employee will either be treated in hospital or cared for at home.  The employee should not attend work until they have fully recovered and have medical clearance to do so.  You should pay sick pay to the employee in the normal way (see 9 below).

You should notify other staff that a colleague has been diagnosed with the coronavirus, however, you should not usually need to name the individual and you should only disclose necessary information.  The Information Commissioner’s Office has published some short guidance for employers on this issue.

You will be contacted by Public Health England’s local Health Protection Team to identify those who have been in contact with the employee and discuss any special measures to be taken.  This may affect the following staff members:

  • anyone who has been in close face-to-face or touching contact;
  • anyone who has talked with, or been coughed on, for any length of time while the employee was symptomatic;
  • anyone who has cleaned up bodily fluids; and
  • close friendship or work groups.

They may advise that anyone who had contact with the affected employee should self-isolate for 14 days and be tested for the virus.   They will advise you how to undertake a deep clean of the premises and how to collect and store any rubbish produced by the affected employee.

Staff who have not had close contact with the affected employee do not need to take any precautions and can continue to work.

  1. Should we restrict or cancel overseas business travel?

Depending on the destination, yes.  Currently, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) is advising against all travel to the Hubei province in China and the cities of Daegu, Cheongdo and Gyeongsan in South Korea (known as the “special care zones”).  All proposed travel to these destinations should be cancelled.

The FCO is also advising against all but essential travel to:

  • Italy
  • USA
  • Mainland China outside of the Hubei province.
  • South Korea outside of the special care zones.

Any proposed travel to these areas should be restricted to business-critical trips only.   In addition, the Government’s latest guidance is that everyone should now try to avoid all unnecessary travel.   If you wish to proceed with a business trip to one of these areas, be prepared for resistance from the affected employees.  In that situation you should obtain legal advice on the safest way forward.

Separately, the European Union has announced that it will suspend non-essential travel between the EU and non-European countries for 30 days from 17 March 2020.  However, this restriction does not apply to the UK.

As the situation is changing rapidly, you should track the FCO’s travel advice on a daily basis here.

  1. Can we ask employees to change or cancel their personal travel plans?

No, you cannot force an employee to change or cancel their travel plans.  The best thing you can do is keep staff updated about the Government’s latest travel advice and explain what will happen if they elect to travel to a high-risk area (i.e. self-isolation for 14 days and what that will mean for their pay – see 9 below).   In addition to avoiding high-risk areas, the Government has advised that those aged 70 or over and/or with certain underlying health conditions should avoid cruise ship travel and that everyone else should try to avoid all unnecessary travel.

  1. Do we need to take any special measures for employees returning from recent overseas trips?

Again, depending on the destination, yes.  If an employee has returned from certain areas in the last 14 days, then they must self-isolate for 14 days and call NHS 111 for advice even if they have no symptoms.  Currently, the affected areas are:

  • Italy
  • Iran
  • The Hubei province in China.
  • The special care zones in South Korea.

On top of this, if an employee has returned from certain areas in the last 14 days and has a cough, a high temperature and/or shortness of breath then the advice is the same: self-isolate for 14 days and call NHS 111 for advice.  Currently, the affected areas are anywhere else in mainland China and South Korea not listed above.  Other affected areas are: Cambodia; Hong Kong; Japan; Laos; Macau; Malaysia; Myanmar; Singapore; Taiwan; Thailand; and Vietnam.

You should consider whether you have any employees returning from these areas.  If you do, you should alert them to the Government’s advice and direct them to stay at home and call NHS 111.  If an employee turns up at work having visited one of these places in the last 14 days, you should immediately remove them to an isolated area (preferably a separate room with a separate bathroom) and tell them to call NHS 111 and follow their advice.

  1. What exactly is self-isolation and who needs to do it?

Self-isolation means staying at home, not attending work or other public areas and limiting contact with other people for a period of either 7 or 14 days.  The Government has produced guidance on self-isolation here and here.  Currently, the following people are required to self-isolate:

  • those living alone who have symptoms of the coronavirus (e.g. a continuous cough or fever) must self-isolate for 7 days from when the symptoms started;
  • all of those who live in a household with others where one person has symptoms of the coronavirus must self-isolate for 14 days from when the ill person’s symptoms started (i.e. everyone in the household must self-isolate);
  • those awaiting a coronavirus test result must self-isolate for 14 days;
  • those entering the UK from certain countries must self-isolate for 14 days; and
  • those who have been in direct contact with someone who has the coronavirus must self-isolate for 14 days.

At present, nobody outside of these groups is required to self-isolate.

  1. What should we pay to an employee who self-isolates?

The pay entitlement for employees in self-isolation will turn on their situation – we explain the entitlements for the different scenarios below.  Employers should also note that the Government has committed to helping employers with fewer than 250 employees by refunding the cost of Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) paid out as a result of the coronavirus.   The scheme will be limited to 2 weeks’ worth of SSP per employee.  At the time of writing, this scheme is not yet up and running, but further details are expected shortly.

Too unwell to work, diagnosed with the coronavirus

You should pay sick pay in the normal way, save that SSP may be payable from the first day of absence rather than the fourth.  The Government has committed to change the usual rules on entitlement to SSP for coronavirus-related absence.   At the time of writing, however, this change has not come into force.  You should also not insist upon receipt of a Fit Note (see 10 below).

Too unwell to work, not diagnosed with the coronavirus

If an employee self-isolates and is too unwell to work but has not been diagnosed with the coronavirus (either because they have not been tested or are awaiting a test result), then you should pay sick pay to them in the normal way.  Again, SSP may be payable from the first day of absence rather than the fourth day.  You should not insist upon a receipt of a Fit Note (see 10 below).

Not unwell, self-isolating because of medical advice or Government guidance

Even though the employee is not sick, they will be entitled to be paid SSP because they are following medical advice or Government guidance to self-isolate.  Again, SSP may be payable from the first day of absence rather than the fourth day.  You would probably not be obliged to pay contractual sick pay because the employee is unlikely to satisfy the terms of your policy.

However, both Acas and the CIPD recommend that employers should elect to pay contractual sick pay to an employee in this situation.  This is to ensure that the employee follows advice to self-isolate and does not attempt to return to work due to concerns about not being paid. You may wish to outline your approach in an addendum to your Sickness Absence Policy.  For example, you could say you are willing to pay contractual sick pay in this situation, save where the employee has elected to travel to a high-risk area or embark on cruise ship travel contrary to the Government’s advice.

Not unwell, self-isolating because of employer’s advice

If you have instructed an employee to self-isolate, then the employee should be paid their normal pay (not sick pay).  This is because they are complying with your instructions.

Not unwell, self-isolating out of choice

If an employee wishes to self-isolate out of fear of catching the coronavirus then you should discuss the way forward with them.  In light of the Government’s latest guidance on social distancing (see below), you should aim to agree that the employee can work from home where possible.  Where this is not possible, you could agree that the employee takes a period of paid or unpaid leave.  Ultimately, if the employee is not unwell or self-isolating, is unable to work from home and is refusing to come to work, then you could consider disciplinary action.

Not unwell and working from home

The Government’s latest guidance on social distancing is that everyone (and especially those based in London) should:

  • stop non-essential contact with others;
  • work from home where they can; and
  • stop all unnecessary travel.

This kind of social distancing is said to be very important for the over 70s, those with underlying conditions and pregnant women.   It is also expected that by the weekend of 21st – 22nd March 2020 those with the most serious health conditions should be largely shielded from all social contact for 12 weeks.

Accordingly, employers should be directing employees to work from home wherever it is possible to do so.  If the employee is working from home, you should pay them their normal pay (not sick pay).

  1. Should we insist upon a Fit Note to certify sickness absences of more than 7 days?

Medical evidence is not required for the first 7 days of sickness absence.  After 7 days, employers usually ask employees to provide a Fit Note from their GP to certify their absence.  However, the Government has advised employers to use their discretion around the need for medical evidence where an employee has been advised to self-isolate.  In other words, do not insist upon the production of a Fit Note at the moment.  The Government has also announced plans to allow a special notification via the NHS 111 helpline to be used where an employer requires evidence.

  1. Do we have to allow employees time off work if their child’s school or childcare setting has closed? Do we have to pay them?

Employees are entitled to take a reasonable amount of dependent’s leave to care for their children in emergency situations. Typically, such leave should be taken for no more than a few days.  If an employee needs a longer period of leave, they may be entitled to take parental leave (up to a maximum of 4 weeks per year per child).  Both dependent’s leave and parental leave are unpaid (unless you choose to enhance the basic right and pay for some or all such periods of leave).

Alternatively, an employee could ask to take paid annual leave or to work from home.  Whether working from home is feasible will depend on the nature of the employee’s job and the ages and/or numbers of children they will have to care for.

  1. What other preparatory steps should we be taking?

There are several helpful steps that you can take now to put your business in the best position to deal with the unfolding situation.  These include:

  • Assembling a team to be responsible for developing and operating your contingency plan.
  • Implementing an internal communications strategy.
  • Cancelling or restricting business travel to the affected areas.
  • Ensuring managers understand the approach to be followed regarding sickness absence, self-isolation and pay.
  • Ensuring staff contact numbers and emergency contact details are up to date.
  • Considering control measures such as segregation or shift working to limit the number of people in the workplace at one time.
  • Testing out homeworking arrangements and allowing staff to work from home wherever possible.

Should you require any further advice on your response to the coronavirus, please contact Amanda Steadman or your usual BDBF contact.

 

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.26.6″][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]


TUPE and long-term sickness benefits

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.0.100″ background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” custom_padding=”|||” global_module=”2165″ saved_tabs=”all”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.27.4″ background_layout=”dark” custom_margin=”0px|||” custom_padding=”0px|||”]

Employment Law News

 

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.22.3″][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”3.25″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.2.2″ text_orientation=”justified” hover_enabled=”0″ use_border_color=”off”]

TUPE and long-term sickness benefits: employee had contractual entitlement to receive benefits until he could return to original job

A long-term sick employee transferred under TUPE but was denied long-term sickness benefits by both the old and new employers’ PHI insurers.  After he was dismissed, he brought claims against the new employer.  The Court had to consider whether the new employer was liable to compensate the employee for the lost benefits until he was able to return to work and, if so, what that meant. 

What does the law say?

The right to benefit from an insurance scheme, such as permanent health insurance (PHI) will automatically transfer under TUPE.  What is not clear is whether the old employer’s right to be indemnified by their PHI insurer transfers to the new employer.  As a result, this is a high-risk area for the new employer.  If an employee who is receiving (or waiting to receive) PHI benefits transfers and is unable to claim under the old employer’s PHI scheme, then the new employer may be on the hook to make those payments itself. 

Further, where an employee is entitled to receive PHI benefits the courts may imply a term preventing dismissal where such dismissal would deprive them of those benefits.  If an employer dismisses in those circumstances it will be in breach of contract and may have to pay compensation equivalent to the lost PHI benefits, potentially up to the earlier of retirement or death.   

What happened in this case?

Mr Visram was employed by American Airlines as an International Security Co-ordinator at Heathrow airport. His employment contract provided for a long-term disability benefits plan.  Under the plan, he was entitled to be paid after 26 weeks’ sickness absence until the earlier of the return to work, death or retirement.  The plan was funded by a PHI policy that American Airlines held with Legal & General.  That policy provided that Mr Visram would be entitled to benefits provided that he remained employed and was too sick to perform the essential duties of the role he performed immediately before going off sick.

In October 2012, Mr Visram went off sick.  Several weeks later his employment transferred from American Airlines to ICTS (UK) Ltd (ICTS).   He remained off sick after the transfer.  When he had been off sick for 26 weeks, he expected to receive the long-term disability benefits.   However, ICTS’ own PHI insurer, Canada Life, refused to pay because Mr Visram was already on sick leave when the policy commenced.   Legal & General also refused to pay because Mr Visram was no longer employed by American Airlines.  After some discussion with ICTS, Legal & General agreed to make 18 months’ worth of payments.  At the end of that period, ICTS dismissed Mr Visram on the grounds of capability and he brought claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. 

What was decided?

Mr Visram succeeded in his claims and the Employment Tribunal decided that he had a contractual entitlement to the long-term disability benefits until he was able to return to work.  This meant that ICTS had been liable to make the payments, regardless of the PHI insurers’ position. 

The question was then how long such payments should have been made for.  If return to work meant the original role, then Mr Visram should be compensated for lost benefits until the earlier of death or retirement.  If return to work meant any suitable full-time work, then, in the Tribunal’s view, compensation should be limited to 4 years’ worth of lost benefits.   The Tribunal decided that “return to work” meant returning to his original role, not an alternative role.   Therefore, ICTS had to pay compensation based upon the lost long-term disability benefits until the earlier of death or retirement.  ICTS appealed to the EAT and then the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal.  The Court decided that the way the contract was drafted made it clear that Mr Visram was entitled to receive the benefits until he was able to return to his previous work as an International Security Co-ordinator, not just any work.  If the intention had been to provide benefits until the point that the employee could return to any work, then this should have been made clear. 

What are the learning points?

This decision highlights two key points for employers:

  • Very careful drafting around the entitlement to long-term disability/PHI benefits is needed. Here, the drafting ultimately obliged the employer to pay these benefits to a qualifying employee.  Although the benefit was funded by insurance, the contract did not stipulate that the employee’s entitlement was contingent upon the insurer accepting the claim and making the payment to the employer.  Further, the employer’s hands were tied by the requirement to pay the benefits until the employee returned to their original role.  Had the wording been extended to cover return to an alternative role, the employer may have avoided liability.

  • Incoming employers in TUPE transfers must conduct careful due diligence on the precise nature of such entitlements. In this case, both the old and new insurers refused to fund the claim, meaning the new employer was on the hook for the payments.   Incoming employers in this situation should seek to agree an adjustment to the sale price and/or seek an indemnity from the seller to cover the risk.

ICTS (UK) Ltd v Visram

If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised in this article, please contact Amanda Steadman (amandasteadman@bdbf.co.uk) or your usual BDBF contact.

 

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.26.6″][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]


Employee accused of sexual assault was unfairly dismissed because of investigating officer’s mistake

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.0.100″ background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” custom_padding=”|||” global_module=”2165″ saved_tabs=”all”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.27.4″ background_layout=”dark” custom_margin=”0px|||” custom_padding=”0px|||”]

Employment Law News

 

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.22.3″][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”3.25″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.2.2″ text_orientation=”justified” hover_enabled=”0″ use_border_color=”off”]

Employee accused of sexual assault was unfairly dismissed because of investigating officer’s mistake

If an investigating officer fails to pass on relevant information to a dismissing officer, could this undermine the reasonableness of the dismissing officer’s decision? 

What does the law say?

In the recent case of Royal Mail Group v Jhuti (Jhuti), the Supreme Court ruled that an employer who had been manipulated into dismissing an employee for a false reason was liable for unfair dismissal based on the hidden reason.  This was the case even though the employer’s dismissing officer had dismissed in good faith for another reason.  You can read our full report on that case here.  Although Jhuti was concerned with an automatically unfair whistleblowing dismissal, the Supreme Court’s reasoning applies equally to everyday unfair dismissals.

In this case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) applied the Jhuti principle in the context of an ordinary unfair dismissal, where an investigating officer failed to pass on relevant information to the dismissing officer.

What happened in this case?

Mr Uddin was a 43-year old manager and S was a 26-year intern working for the London Borough of Ealing (LBE).  One Friday night, Mr Uddin, S and some colleagues went for drinks after work.  Mr Uddin and S were drinking heavily and had been affectionate with each other during the course of the evening.  However, S later alleged that Mr Uddin had followed her into the disabled toilet towards the end of the evening, locked the door and sexually assaulted her.  S also alleged that, when back at work, Mr Uddin had harassed and intimidated her.

LBE’s management were alerted to the incident and a disciplinary investigation was triggered.  A Mr Jenkins was appointed to investigate the matter.   On 12 January 2017, Mr Jenkins concluded there was a case to answer for gross misconduct, namely the sexual assault and the subsequent harassment.  A Ms Fair was appointed to chair the disciplinary process.

Mr Jenkins had urged S to report the matter to the police, which she did on 19 January 2017.  However, the police identified inconsistencies and discrepancies in S’s account.  She then withdrew her allegations and said she had felt pressured by LBE and Mr Jenkins to report the matter.   On 24 February 2017, the police decided that an action against Mr Uddin was not in the public interest.

By the time the disciplinary hearing took place on 31 March 2017, Mr Jenkins knew that S had withdrawn her allegations to the police.  However, he did not pass this information on to Ms Fair.  Ms Fair decided to dismiss Mr Uddin for gross misconduct.  Whilst she knew that the police had decided against action, she did not know that S had withdrawn her allegations.

Mr Uddin argued that his dismissal was unfair because Mr Jenkins had failed to tell Ms Fair that S had withdrawn her allegations before the dismissal decision was taken.  He said that the withdrawal showed that S’s evidence was unreliable.  Indeed, Ms Fair later conceded that had she been told about the withdrawal she would have wanted to find out more.

However, the Employment Tribunal dismissed the claim.  Leaving aside the withdrawal issue, they said there was still sufficient grounds for dismissal and knowing about the withdrawal would have made no difference.  Mr Uddin appealed.

What was decided?

The EAT said that Jhuti addressed situations where the knowledge or conduct of a person other than the actual decision maker could be attributed to the employer when deciding the true reason for dismissal.

This case was slightly different.  There was no suggestion that Mr Jenkins had deliberately manipulated Ms Fair or that there was a hidden, true reason for the dismissal.  However, the Supreme Court had noted that its reasoning would also be relevant to an assessment of whether the employer had acted reasonably.  Here, Ms Fair had taken the decision in good faith, but it was in ignorance of a key piece of information known by Mr Jenkins.  This failure meant the dismissal had to be unfair.

However, this could yet turn out to be a pyrrhic victory for Mr Uddin. When it comes to deciding on remedy, it’s possible that the Tribunal may decide that even if Ms Fair had known about the withdrawal, it would have made no difference and she would have still dismissed.  If so, they could potentially award nil compensation.

What are the learning points?

Employers need to ensure that their dismissal processes are unimpeachable and that both investigating officers and dismissing officers receive detailed training on the scope of their role.   In particular, investigating officers need to ensure that the information they provide to dismissing officers is accurate and updated as required: they are not relieved of this obligation when the investigation is concluded and passed to the dismissing officer.  It would be advisable for employers to outline this duty in disciplinary policies and other relevant internal guidance.

Uddin v London Borough of Ealing

If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised in this article, please contact Amanda Steadman (amandasteadman@bdbf.co.uk) or your usual BDBF contact.

 

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.26.6″][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]


Understanding the changes to contracts of employment

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.0.100″ background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” custom_padding=”|||” global_module=”2165″ saved_tabs=”all”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.27.4″ background_layout=”dark” custom_margin=”0px|||” custom_padding=”0px|||”]

Employment Law News

 

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.22.3″][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”3.25″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.2.2″ text_orientation=”justified” hover_enabled=”0″ use_border_color=”off”]

Understanding the changes to contracts of employment coming into force on 6 April 2020

The rules governing statements of employment particulars (sometimes referred to as section 1 statements) are changing on 6 April 2020.  The wider category of “workers” will become entitled to receive a statement and statements must be provided earlier and contain more information.  Typically, employers comply with the requirement to provide a written statement by providing an employment contract.  Accordingly, employers will need to update template employment contracts and prepare an appropriate template to be given to workers.  In this briefing, we explain what is changing and the steps employers need to take in response.

  1. Who is entitled to receive a statement of particulars?

Before 6 April 2020, employers had to provide statements of employment particulars (statements) to all employees who had one month’s service.  There was no obligation to provide statements to employees who worked for periods shorter than a month.

From 6 April 2020, employers must provide statements to employees and workers regardless of length of service.  This means employers will need to consider whether someone they wish to engage might be categorised as a worker.  As a reminder, a worker is an individual who:

  • works under a contract;
  • provides personal service to the other party; and
  • is not in business on their own account.

This also means that employers will need to be ready to give statements to those who are employed or engaged even for very short periods of time.

  1. When must the statement be provided?

Before 6 April 2020, employers had to provide statements within two months of starting work.

From 6 April 2020, employers must provide the vast majority of the required information by no later than the first day of work.  A limited amount of information can be provided after the first day of work, provided it is given within two months of starting work.

  1. What information must be included in the statement?

Full details of the new requirements are set out at (i) – (iii) below.  All of the items marked with an asterisk are new particulars which must be provided for the first time from 6 April 2020.

(i) Information to be provided by the first day of work in a single document

The following particulars must be provided to the employee/worker by their first day of work and in a single document, which will usually be the contract of employment.

  • Names of the employer and employee/worker
  • The date the employment/engagement started
  • The date continuous employment began (employees only)
  • Job title and brief description of work
  • Place/s of work and employer’s address
  • Details of any probationary period including conditions and duration *
  • If the job is not intended to permanent, how long the job is expected to last or the end date of a fixed-term contract
  • Length of notice required to terminate the contract
  • Normal hours of work
  • Days of the week that the employee/worker must work (and where hours/days are variable how this determined) *
  • Details of rate of pay or method of calculating pay
  • Intervals of pay (i.e. weekly, monthly or other)
  • Holiday entitlement and pay
  • Details of any other benefits (including non-contractual benefits) *
  • Details of any mandatory training requirements (whether or not the cost is born by the employer) *
  • An outline of how to appeal a disciplinary decision and how to raise a grievance
  • If the employee or worker is required to work outside the UK for over a month, the arrangements that will apply (including period of time and pay and benefits)

(ii) Information to be provided by the first day of work but which may be given in a separate and readily accessible document

The following particulars must also be provided to the employee/worker by their first day of work, but may, if desired, be set out in a separate and readily accessible document such as a staff handbook.  Alternatively, for ease, the employer may prefer to include this information within the main statement.

  • Details of eligibility for sick leave and pay
  • Details of any type of paid leave (including non-contractual entitlements) *

(iii) Information to be provided within two months of starting work in a supplementary document

The following particulars must be provided to the employee/worker within two months of starting work and may be set out in a separate supplementary statement (as opposed to updating the main statement).  Alternatively, for ease, the employer may simply prefer to include this information within the main statement given on the first day of work.

  • Details of pension entitlement
  • Details of any collective agreements affecting the employment/engagement
  • Details of any disciplinary rules and the disciplinary and grievance procedures
  • Details of any other training entitlement *
  1. Do employers need to revise contracts for existing employees?

There is no obligation to amend existing employment contracts or statements for existing employees or to provide statements to existing workers.  The obligation is to ensure all new statements issued from 6 April 2020 comply with the new rules.

However, if an existing employee or worker requests an updated employment contract or statement, then the updated version should be amended to comply with the new rules.

  1. What are the consequences if an employer fails to comply with the new requirements?

An employee or worker will only be able claim compensation for a failure to provide a compliant statement where they have succeeded in a separate substantive claim before an Employment Tribunal.  The complaint about the failure to provide the statement is then able to piggy-back on the successful claim.  If they are able to do this, they may be awarded additional compensation of between 2 to 4 weeks’ pay, which is capped at £538 per week from 6 April 2020. This means the maximum compensation available for a breach will be £2,152.

If the employee or worker does not have a separate claim then they are entitled to seek a declaration from the Employment Tribunal, which has the power to amend the particulars.

  1. What steps should employers be taking now?

Employers should take the following steps to prepare for this imminent change:

  • Audit the status of future recruits to assess whether they have employee or worker status.Employers should already have a system in place to identify whether new recruits will have worker status because, from April 2019, workers became entitled to receive itemised pay slips.
  • Gather information needed to populate certain of the new particulars (such as paid leave, benefits and training entitlements).This information could be compiled into a schedule of entitlements across the workforce, which should help to streamline the preparation of contracts in future.
  • Update relevant template documents before 6 April 2020.This may include anything from simple statements and contracts of employment to more complex service agreements.  Ideally, there should be a separate template document for workers to avoid blurring the distinction between workers and employees.
  • When updating template documents, employers should take care not to accidentally convert a non-contractual benefit (e.g. enhanced maternity pay or a discretionary bonus) into a contractual benefit.
  • Ensure the recruitment process is adjusted to provide the necessary document/s to the employee or worker by no later than their first day at work.Where an employer elects to provide certain information within two months of starting work, there needs to be a system in place to remind HR to provide the information to the employee/worker in time.

Should you require any further advice on these changes please contact Amanda Steadman (amandasteadman@bdbf.co.uk) or your usual BDBF contact.

 

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.26.6″][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]