header-logo header-logo

29 April 2020
Issue: 7885 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Employment
printer mail-detail

COVID-19: Furlough scheme could lead to ‘mass litigation'

‘Mass litigation post-pandemic’ could be brought unless the government addresses ‘significant flaws’ in its furlough scheme, employment lawyers have warned
Under the Job Retention scheme etc the government pays up to 80% of salary of each furloughed worker, up to a maximum of £2,500 per month for three months.

However, the Employment Law Association (ELA) has highlighted ‘significant flaws’ in the system, which could leave both employer and employee vulnerable, in a letter to the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) this week.

According to the letter, an ELA working party has identified ‘gaps in the scheme and conflicting government guidance’, which could result in claims being issued in the employment tribunal. Its questions concern redundancy, annual leave and employee representatives.

The questions include: whether acting as an employee representative constitutes ‘work’ for the purposes of furlough, and therefore breaks the furlough period and makes them ineligible for government support?

The working party also asks: can an employer commence collective consultation on proposed redundancies while employees are on furlough leave? Does an employer have to collectively consult when initiating furlough scheme and if so, when? And, can an employer force an employee to take annual leave during furlough?

Paul McFarlane, chair of ELA’s legislative & policy committee, said: ‘It’s essential that the government responds to this paper and provides clarity on the gaps in their guidance which currently places employers and employees in a vulnerable position.

‘Whilst we navigate through these uncharted waters, support is needed and those most vulnerable must be protected, which is why clear guidance is so important. The working party has identified a number of areas where conflicting guidance is given and urge the government to be transparent so employers are protected from litigation down the line.’

@emplawyers

Issue: 7885 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll