What should I be mindful of in relation to pregnant workers? Is there a right to suspend?
Yes, but as a last resort. In summary, the law requires employers:
- to assess the workplace risks posed to new or expectant mothers or their babies;
- to alter the employee’s working conditions or hours of work to avoid any significant risk to them;
- where it is not reasonable to alter working conditions or hours, or would not avoid the risk, to offer suitable alternative work on terms that are not “substantially less favourable”;
- where suitable alternative work is not available, or the employee reasonably refuses it, the employer should consider whether it is appropriate to suspend the employee on full pay.
Related FAQs
Where a lender requires a EWS1 as part of the mortgage requirements for a flat this will apply regardless of its tenure and will therefore apply to applicable RTB properties. It may also be required in order to obtain a valuation for the disposal notices and issues in obtaining it could cause problems in serving this within relevant deadlines required by legislation.
Under CBILS, for the purposes of calculating the applicant’s annual turnover, approved lenders have been aggregating turnover across the whole of the private equity investor’s portfolio meaning they failed to qualify for the scheme as they were deemed to exceed the £45 million threshold.
For private equity-backed businesses, the removal of the upper limit on annual turnover criteria for CLBILS seemingly avoids the issue of turnover aggregation across investment portfolios seen with the CBILS, potentially enabling more private equity sponsor portfolio companies to be able to access the CLBILS funding.
In appropriate cases, disciplinary action and then dismissal may be fair if an employee refuses to wear a face covering in the workplace. For example, if this is in breach of the government guidance or if employer has issued a reasonable management instruction to this effect due to an identified health and safety risk.
It is important that employers use a fair and reasonable procedure when deciding whether to discipline and/or dismiss an employee and that its actions does not unlawfully discriminate against employees who have legitimate reasons for not wearing masks, such as those individuals who have health conditions like asthma.
In our latest “in conversation” webinar we discussed the outlook for the corporate transaction market. Whilst it would be a brave person to predict the future of anything at the moment given current circumstances, we were joined by two organisations who are very well placed to provide their views.
John Laud, Head of Corporate Banking for North and West Yorkshire for Barclays, his colleague Stephen Loureda from their Credit Analysis Team, and Jill Williams, Investment Director of Mercia Asset Management’s Growth Fund, were in conversation with Ward Hadaway corporate partners Adrian Ballam and Jonathan Pollard to share their thoughts about how the ‘new normal’ for the transactions market may look:
- With supply chain and forecast prediction challenges, how will banks and investors determine what represents a sound opportunity?
- How will distressed and opportunistic acquisition opportunities be funded, and what is investor appetite for such opportunities?
- How have seller and buyer pricing expectations been impacted as a result of the pandemic?
- How are funders reacting, and how should ambitious businesses respond to the very low, or even negative, interest rates?
We expect this video to be of real value to those businesses whose plans of buying, selling or investment may have been impacted by the current economic crisis, but who are looking at opportunities to determine how they may shape their futures – #gettingbacktobusiness.
On 30th April 2020, the CMA issued a guidance note setting out its views about how the law operates in relation to refunds.
Where a contract is not performed as agreed, the CMA considers that in most cases, consumer protection law will generally allow consumers to obtain a refund.
This includes the following situations:
- Where a business has cancelled a contract without providing any of the promised goods or services
- Where no service is provided by a business, for example because this is prevented by Government public health measures
- A consumer cancels, or is prevented from receiving any services, because Government public health measures mean they are not allowed to use the services.
In the CMA’s view, this will usually apply even where the consumer has paid what the business says is a non-refundable deposit or advance payment.
This positon reflects the CMA’s previous guidance which they had issued in relation to the requirement of fairness in consumer contracts under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which was that a clause in a contract that gives a blanket entitlement to a trader to cancel a contract and retain deposits paid is likely to be unfair, and therefore unenforceable – it would be unfair to a consumer to lose their deposit if the contract is terminated without any fault on their part, and if they had received no benefit for the payments made.
The CMA’s latest guidance therefore confirms their view that the Covid-19 outbreak does not change the basic rights of the consumer, and that they should not have to pay for goods or services that they do not receive.