Can we require employees who have been shielding to return to work at the end of the 12 week shielding period?
The Government introduced shielding in the peak of the pandemic. Current advice is that shielding is not required. However, those who have been shielding are likely to be the most vulnerable and will likely be nervous about a return to work. They may also be disabled under the Equality Act 2010. You should therefore consider any concerns that are expressed and take action to mitigate any risks. For example, it may be possible to keep these employees on furlough until the scheme runs out or they may be able to work from home. If you would like to discuss any specific scenarios then please contact one of the team.
Related FAQs
Any hearings attended in person will need to be approved by the judge hearing the matter, if necessary, in consultation with the regional lead COP judge. Such requests are highly unlikely to be granted during COVID-19 unless there is a genuine urgency. However, it is deemed to be appropriate matters are likely to be adjourned on the basis that a remote hearing is not possible and a hearing in person is not safe or possible.
The change in the law has the potential to place much greater financial risks on suppliers, making it more difficult to exit a contract with a customer of doubtful solvency. This will place increased emphasis on appropriate financial due diligence and credit checking before entering into supply contracts.
In addition to the obvious issues around financial risk, suppliers will also need to think carefully about how their contracts are drafted. For example, any form of right that is drafted so as to be triggered on customer insolvency will clearly be problematic. These could include:
- Retention of Title provisions, which are commonly drafted so that the right to enter premises and retake possession of the goods is triggered on insolvency;
- Provisions for brand protection, which seek to control how goods are dealt with on termination of the contract.
This is potentially a very significant development for many businesses. We would strongly recommend specialist advice be obtained so that:
- businesses understand the potential increased risks faced; and
- where possible, contracts are updated so that appropriate protections are maintained.
Yes probably in our opinion, even if you are not considering taking any formal action against them. Ultimately if a doctor is suspended this could be considered as causing them reputational damage and it therefore is correct that they are afforded the protections (in particular in relation to keeping exclusion/suspension under review) of MHPS. Under Part V of MHPS there is provision for excluding practitioners if they are a danger to patients and they refuse to recognise it or if they refuse to co-operate. It doesn’t refer to a particular risk for the practitioner themselves, but it would appear logical that it would apply.
Parties are encouraged to review upcoming matters to assess the viability for there to be any agreement which can be reached in relation to the issues in dispute or to consider whether the case needs to proceed to a remote hearing. If directions or issues can be agreed between the parties, reducing the need for remote hearings, then that is the preferred option.
- The Pensions Regulator has published regularly-updated guidance for employers.
- It will take “a proportionate and risk-based approach towards enforcement decisions … with the aim of supporting both employers and savers”. In other words, the law remains the same, but the Regulator will show restraint in enforcement against breaches.