Articles by ‘Gemma Ospedale’

The Government has today (26 June 2020) issued a Treasury Direction concerning the new flexible furlough scheme which comes into force on 1 July 2020.

In this second part of our return to work series, we examine some of the issues which employers may experience in asking people to return to work and risks of which they need to be aware.

Employers across the UK are thinking about how to get staff back to work safely, and part of that plan might include taking temperature checks of employees before they enter the office. But what are the legal implications of this apparently simple process?

With approximately 8.4m jobs furloughed, roughly ¼ of the total jobs in the UK, and 1m employers furloughing, costing the Government £15b, it was inevitable that some changes would have to be brought into the furlough scheme. However, the announcements on Friday are less draconian than many had feared.

Recently, the Chancellor made a further Treasury Direction in relation to the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme.

Part 1: Work stations and premises

Now that the Government has relaxed some of the lockdown restrictions and advised that people may, under certain circumstances, return to work, there are a number of issues about which employers need to think carefully to ensure the workplace is suitable and appropriate for a return of employees and workers bearing in mind social distancing and the need to protect health. In this first of a three-part series, we look at what needs to be done in the workstation and premises to ensure health and safety is protected.

The former boss of Britain’s best-known HIV charity was unfairly dismissed because she had blown the whistle about the alleged misbehaviour of a trustee, an Employment Tribunal has concluded.

In R (on the Application of Hottak and Another) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that employees who work abroad and wished to bring claims under the Equality Act in the UK must satisfy the same territorial jurisdiction test as that established in the House of Lords (as it then was) in Lawson v Serco Limited in relation to unfair dismissal claims under the Employment Rights Act. In doing so, the Court dismissed an appeal against the Divisional Court’s decision that Afghan nationals who were employed by the British Government to work as interpreters for British military forces in Afghanistan could not bring Equality Act claims.

In Risby v London Borough of Waltham Forest, the EAT has held that there only needs to be a loose causal link between an employee’s conduct and their disability, for a disability discrimination claim arising from disability to be made out.

Fears remain about the possible consequences of the National Living Wage for charities.

In Wasteney v East London NHS Foundation Trust the EAT has upheld a Tribunal decision that disciplinary action taken against a Christian senior manager for imposing her religious views on a Muslim junior employee was not discriminatory. The junior employee complained that she felt the manager was “grooming” her by praying with her and inviting her to church services. The Tribunal and the EAT found that the employer was entitled to consider this serious misconduct, namely the blurring of the professional boundaries and the subjection of a junior colleague to improper pressure and unwanted conduct.

In Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth the EAT had to decide whether the distinction between “information” and “an allegation” could remain good law in the whistleblowing legislation. The EAT determined that it could not.