header-logo header-logo

13 May 2020
Issue: 7886 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Employment
printer mail-detail

COVID-19: Heed concerns, employers told

Employers could face legal proceedings if they fail to take account of coronavirus fears, lawyers have warned

The Prime Minister announced on Sunday that employees can return to work if they cannot work from home.

However, Dan Hobbs, employment barrister at 5 Essex Court, said: ‘Social distancing in the workplace (particularly on construction sites) may be difficult to achieve and other protective measures, such as the provision of PPE (personal protective equipment), has been a point of much contention throughout the crisis to date.

‘Employees may be rightly concerned for their own health and safety as well as that of their co-workers and others in their household. Section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that employees may not be subjected to a detriment because they have raised a relevant health and safety concern with their employer (such as the failure to provide effective social distancing measures in the workplace or the unavailability of PPE).’

Consequently, any employer who took disciplinary action or withheld pay because the employee refused to return, walked out or raised a relevant concern where they reasonably believed the danger to be serious and imminent would be in breach and could face proceedings in the employment tribunal, he said. Similarly, ‘if the employee is dismissed for that reason, they will have a claim under s 100 ERA for automatic unfair dismissal. There is no qualifying period of employment to bring such a claim and interim relief is available’.

Meanwhile, lawyers broadly welcomed Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s four-month extension of the furlough scheme to the end of October, with a part-time flexible option available from August.

Jo Keddie, partner at Winckworth Sherwood, said: ‘Employers may still face some difficult practical choices as to how to put that into practice and how best to balance furlough arrangements with part-time working for employees where possible.

‘The wider guidance issued this month surrounding health and safety requirements for businesses in different sectors will still be of crucial importance.’

Simon Davis, president of the Law Society, said the extension would be ‘a big help for firms, particularly small ones’.

Issue: 7886 / 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
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
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
back-to-top-scroll