So is that it, then? Is Covid behind us for all practical purposes in England, no masks, no working from home, no vaccination passes, all going or gone? Or, in nearly the words of Mark Twain, are reports of the death of Plan B greatly exaggerated?
Obviously, no one would suggest any connection between this week’s Government’s announcement of the end of Plan B restrictions when there are still 100,000 reasons a day to hesitate on the one hand and Downing Street’s desperate need for some good news on the other, so let us discount any political influence in this right now, yes? However, the ending of Plan B has had a pretty mixed reception. Many senior medical advisers are audibly sucking their teeth over this being a bit early and the Government’s SAGE panel is quite clear that WFH remains the most effective means of blocking transmission, while City centre coffee shops and Dubai hoteliers are predictably thrilled.
The announcement obviously has some ramifications for employers, but while obvious in principle they are not so clear on the ground, and it does not provide answers to many of the practical questions which will now arise. Boris advises employees to “start talking to their employers about the return” but we don’t recommend that employers wait for their staff to approach them on this, not least because for the most part they just won’t. Instead businesses should be considering their positions in advance so that they can be on the front foot in what happens next. Here are some starters:
When an employee leaves, it is often a first step for the business that his personal access to their professional mailbox is cancelled as soon as possible (often even during the exit meeting). But most often that mailbox will remain open for quite some time after the termination, as there is a genuine business concern that e-mails may still come in after the termination that are of entirely legitimate interest to the company, such as in relation to orders or ongoing matters requiring to be picked up by someone else.
By now, employers know that on January 13, the United States Supreme Court stayed the controversial “Emergency Temporary Standard” (ETS) issued by the U.S. Occupational Safety Administration (OSHA). (See our post discussing the Court’s ruling 
Just before Christmas, somewhat lost perhaps amidst the Plan B vs the did-he, didn’t-he Christmas Party merry-go-round, the government released the latest list of employers being “named and shamed” for failing to pay the minimum wage. As you may recall, although the naming and shaming scheme has been around since 2011, it was paused in 2018 pending a governmental review. The government announced that the scheme would re-start (with some changes) in February 2019 and the first list of employers named under the new scheme was published in January 2021. This most recent list is therefore only the third under the new scheme.
In a per curiam majority 
The increased spotlight upon D&I matters which seems to be replacing covid as our clients’ dish of the day shines upon investigations too. How you investigate employees’ disclosures or complaints (especially but by no means necessarily, of discrimination or harassment) can make a considerable difference as to how those employees and others sharing their protected characteristics view the integrity and value of that process. If you do not believe that you will get a fair hearing because of your race or gender, for example, you are less likely to make disclosures or complaints in a good faith attempt to improve the situation. Instead, you are more likely to sit on stuff which the best interests of the business would suggest should be disclosed, and/or just to leave, denying your employer all your talent, experience and commitment, and in no mood to recommend your employer to others who may share that characteristic. Maximising the confidence of all your staff in your investigations process, whether they feature in it as complainant or accused or witness, is therefore a key part of your getting the most out of doing it properly. They must believe that the investigation process you propose is suitable for their complaint or disclosure, that it will be looked at objectively and impartially and that it will lead on to meaningful redress where appropriate.