It was what seems an eternity ago in July 2018 that the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in the combined cases of Royal Mencap v Thompson Blake and John Shannon v Jakishan and Prithee Rampersad (t/a Clifton House Residential Home). A link to our blog post at that time is here. Readers will see that we hoped at the time that the judgment of the Court of Appeal would not be the subject of an appeal, a hope which as it turned out was disappointed almost immediately. Almost three years and one pandemic later, that appeal was decided by the Supreme Court late this month and, thankfully, its conclusion supports that of the Court of Appeal. As there is really nowhere else for the issue to go from here, it would appear that we have clarity at long last, for the UK care sector in particular.
Future of the Workplace webinar 18 March – follow-up questions answered, Part 3 (UK)
Here are answers to two more of the questions which came up at our webinar last week, this time dealing with employee resistance to workplace Covid testing and the wisdom or otherwise of agreeing to post-lockdown WFH without formal changes to terms of employment.
- If an employee refuses to be tested at work, how should we deal with this? Should we refer to it in a Covid policy?
- I presume that we can informally agree WFH without changing terms and conditions if we have no issues with people remote working?
American Rescue Plan Tax Credits for Employers Who Voluntarily Provide FFCRA Leave – Supplement
This is a Supplement to our post on March 25, 2021 regarding Section 9641 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (the “ARPA”). This Supplement addresses state and local governmental employers.
Section 9641 of the Rescue Plan makes available tax credits to offset the costs borne by certain employers who voluntarily provide emergency paid sick leave and emergency paid family leave to employees for certain types of covered absences occasioned by the pandemic, from April 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021. Continue Reading
Belgium – new online registration tool requires employers to register employees who can’t work from home
As we saw the covid graphs get steeper each day of last week, it is no real surprise that the Belgian government has now announced a new “Easter lockdown” for the next four weeks. Schools will close as of this Friday for an extended Easter break, that increasingly imperative haircut will have to wait another month and non-essential shops may open by appointment only.
Because decreasing compliance with the obligation to work from home is considered one of the main factors causing the spike in infections, the government has announced that going forward, Social Inspectors will monitor compliance more strictly. As a reminder, working from home is currently mandatory in Belgium unless this is “impossible due to the nature of the position of the employee or the continuity of the business, activities or services”.
American Rescue Plan Tax Credits for Employers Who Voluntarily Provide Paid Sick Leave and Paid Family and Medical Leave (US)
On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed into law the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (the “Rescue Plan”).[1] This post reviews Section 9641 of the Rescue Plan, which makes available tax credits to certain employers who voluntarily provide paid time sick leave and family and medical act leave to employees for absences occasioned by the pandemic, from April 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021.
Section 9641 of the Rescue Plan is based on the paid sick leave and paid family and medical leave provisions that were effective April 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020, under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”).[2] Although the mandatory paid leave provisions of the FFCRA were not extended past December 31, 2020, the tax credits available under Section 9641 of the Rescue Plan are based on the framework of the FFCRA, with certain modifications.
This post will first review the FFCRA, and then explain how the Rescue Plan’s tax credits work. Continue Reading
US Federal Labor Viewpoints – Week of March 15, 2021
From our Capital Thinking blog, here are the latest federal employment law developments in in the legislative and executive branches during the week of March 15.
***
This is a weekly post spotlighting labor topics in focus by the US legislative and executive branches during the previous week. In this issue, we cover:
- Biden Administration Labor Leadership Update
- Recap | Deputy Secretary of Labor Nominee’s Confirmation Hearing
- Age Discrimination Bill Introduced
- Unemployment Benefits Guidance
- Registered Apprenticeship Programs
- OSHA National Emphasis Program Launched
- Labor Department Workforce Change
Future of the Workplace webinar 18 March – follow-up questions answered, Part 2 (UK)
Here are a couple more answers to questions coming up at our webinar last week:
- Do we still need to comply with collective consultation where we are not dismissing, only making contractual changes?
- Our policy currently removes COVID-related absences from our Bradford factor sickness calculations – should we do the same for adverse reactions to the vaccine?
Workers gain new health and safety protection from 31 May (UK)
As the law currently stands, sections 44 and 100 Employment Rights Act 1996 protect employees against detriment (e.g. disciplinary action or suspension of pay) and dismissal as a result of their taking steps to protect themselves or others in certain health and safety situations, including where “in circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed to be serious and imminent and which he could not reasonably be expected to avert, he left or … (while the danger persisted) refused to return to his place of work”.
The government has now issued an Order extending the health and safety detriment protection to workers. The Employment Rights Act 1996 (Protection from Detriment in Health and Safety Cases) (Amendment) Order 2021 will come into force on 31 May, meaning that from that date workers as well as employees will be covered by s44 and so share the right not to be subjected to a detriment if they leave their workplace (or refuse to return to their workplace) because they reasonably believe they are in serious or imminent danger. [Workers do not benefit from s100 because that declares the dismissal of an employee in such circumstances to be unfair, and workers who are not employees do not have unfair dismissal rights].
Future of the Workplace webinar 18 March – follow-up questions answered, Part 1 (UK)
Over 700 sign-ups for our Future of the Workplace webinar yesterday show much continuing uncertainty on the part of employers as to just what happens next in practical HR terms as the lock-down staggers to a scheduled end in June. As usual lots of questions were received through the chat facility, so we have combined some of them to avoid duplication. Here is the first batch of answers – stay tuned for more to come next week:-
Spring State Law Round-Up (CT, IL, OH, NY, PA, DC)
State legislatures have been busy in 2021 passing new employment-related laws. Here we look at some of the highlights of new laws in Connecticut, Illinois, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.
Connecticut is the latest state to prohibit discrimination based upon traits historically associated with race, including hair texture, protective hairstyles such as wigs or headwraps, and braids, cornrows, locs, twists, Bantu knots, afros and afro puffs. The law went into effect on March 10, 2021.
Illinois is poised to enact SB 1480, which was passed by the legislature in January 2021 and is awaiting signature. The law contains three provisions relevant to employers. Continue Reading
