Now that the government have confirmed face coverings are no longer compulsory in hospitality shops or on public transport in England from 19th of July, businesses will be asking what the implications of this are for them.
From next Monday, rules change, instructing those in England to make their own decisions around whether they want to wear a face covering. Discuss businesses more flexibility in deciding whether or not to require the workforce to continue to wear facemasks within the workplace.
However government advice is to continue the encouragement of wearing face coverings if indoors around a large volume of strangers. Ultimately, within the workplace it is down to the employer whether or not face coverings are mandatory.
It has however been announced that on transport for London services and Manchester trams, face coverings will be a condition of travel except for those who are medically exempt.
In Scotland and Wales the rules are different, face coverings are still required in certain settings. Here we discuss what this means in practice for English employers…
As a business, you still have a duty of care to safeguard health, safety and well-being of your workforce. This has not changed because of fluctuating government advice regarding face coverings.
In making your decision you should consider the nature of your team and listen to any concerns that were raised that is likely to be employees who welcome not wearing a face covering stop space however face coverings I worn to protect others around an individual rather than the individual themselves.
You may have younger employees who aren’t vaccinated yet or clinically vulnerable employees with concerns around other colleagues not wearing face coverings.
Employers need to review the coronavirus risk assessment in view of these changes. Reviewing your risk assessment will aid in a decision on which measures such as face coverings need to stay for the time being. Moreover, your policy on face coverings in the workplace needs to be updated and communicated to the workforce so that employees understand what the rules are.
If you do decide to make face coverings mandatory, remember that some of your workforce may be clinically exempt.
Alternatively, you may want to implement a policy that face coverings are no longer mandatory however if staff feel more comfortable wearing a face covering that they are welcome to do so or face coverings are only required in certain situations, such as large meetings etc.
Be prepared for resistance from employees that haven’t got the desired outcome from your new policy. Employees are however expected to comply with any workplace policies set by the employer. However, to manage any resistance to the changes, try to accommodate requests from individuals who are not happy with the outcome, and explain how their requests have been taken into account in your coronavirus risk assessment.
Also, it’s worth bearing in mind that public transport may also be a concern to employees, if others are no longer required to wear a face covering particularly in busy travel periods such as rush-hour.
From HR and health and safety perspective, here are the measures to consider to help your workforce transition to returning to the office.
– encourage social distancing
– ensure work areas are well ventilated with open windows if possible
– continue with regular coronavirus testing in the workplace
– ensure excellent workplace cleanliness with plenty of hand sanitiser and extra hygiene measures
– allow employees to wear face coverings if they want to
– have a section in your face covering policy stating that if employees request colleagues within close proximity to wear a face covering that they do so
– remind employees to respect that colleagues wishes; there are many reasons employees may be uncomfortable with not wearing face masks which are not immediately apparent
– inform colleagues that it’s okay to politely let someone know that they aren’t comfortable with someone being close to them without a face covering on
– send out a letter (we can provide this for you) to encourage vaccine take up amongst employees
– if at all possible, consider paying employees on sickness absence leave with coronavirus in full (although it’s difficult for an employee to prove that they caught coronavirus at work, it will ease concerns that employees know if they do contracted the virus they won’t suffer financially)
– where possible, allow vulnerable workers to work from home until the majority of the workforce is vaccinated
– consider adjusting working hours for concerned employees so that they can avoid peak travel times
From next Monday (19 July 2021), it will be the employers choice whether or not to require the workforce to wear face coverings in the workplace.
Trying to balance the individual circumstances of employees will be a difficult task for employers.
Whichever decision employers come to is likely to be met with resistance from employees that oppose your decision. Ensure employee concerns are listened to, and the workplace coronavirus risk assessment is revised and available for employees to view.
Keep your risk assessment under regular review to control measures to combat the virus spreading.
Be prepared to justify your approach to the workforce. If you think you would benefit from assistance with anything discussed in this article, or anything else HR and employment law related, give our friendly team a ring today on 0161 603 2156 to discuss how we can help.
It’s pride month, and here at Supportis HQ we celebrate our LGBTQIA+ colleagues, clients and contacts all year round. We believe allyship in and out of the workplace is so important as an antidote to isolation for those targeted by oppression. In the last few days a major decision has been released from the Employment Tribunal regarding workplace views on transgenderism, here we discuss the implications of this decision, which some have condemned as regressive…
In this article, we discuss the case of Maya Forstater v CGD Europe and others, in which the Appeal Tribunal has held that a person’s views on whether someone else can identify as a different sex and gender to the one they were assigned at birth (identifying as transgender) is a philosophical belief and therefore protected under s.10 of the Equality Act 2010.
Ms Forstater, the claimant, tweeted that people can’t change their biological sex, and questioned government plans to permit people to declare their own gender.
Subsequently her contract wasn’t renewed following investigation after complaints from multiple colleagues who were offended by her comments, that she defined as “material reality”.
The claimant complained that she was discriminated against due to her beliefs. The employment tribunal (ET) then held a preliminary hearing to work out whether her beliefs were a “philosophical” within the meaning of The Equality Act 2010.
The ET described her belief as absolutist, and said that her decision to “refer to a person by the sex she considers appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment”, was one that was “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”.
However, the EAT (appeal tribunal) found that Ms Forstater’s belief did fall into the 2010 Act.
The matter will now, the EAT ruled, be remitted to a freshly constituted ET to work out whether the treatment about which she complains was due to or associated with that belief. However, Mr Justice Choudhury made it clear that this judgment doesn’t mean that the EAT has expressed any view on the merits of either side of the transgender debate.
He also emphasised that the judgment doesn’t mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity and nor does it mean that businesses won’t be ready to provide a secure environment for transgender persons.
This EAT ruling has been described as a step backwards for inclusivity and equality for all.
Although EAT rulings are binding, it’s still uncertain whether this decision are going to be appealed and whether a Court of Appeal will side with the ET or this recent EAT decision.
As was made clear by the EAT judge, the choice during this case doesn’t allow individuals the liberty to harass others who don’t share their “philosophical beliefs” – simply because a view is classed as philosophical doesn’t mean that individuals can’t be mindful of how they manifest those beliefs.
With that said, employers must be mindful of the difference between an employee having certain views, however offensive, and using those views to cause offence or to harass others. this might be the difference between a good and unfair dismissal or discrimination of the individual who holds the philosophical belief. Crucially, where cases like this are observed within a company, it should be thoroughly investigated and a thorough disciplinary, or grievance, procedure needs to be followed.
If you think your business would benefit from watertight policies, procedures and round the clock HR advice contact our friendly team today to see how we can help on 0161 603 2156.
There has been speculation for a while around whether getting the coronavirus vaccination will become compulsory for things like jobs and travel.
Reports now indicate the Government will indeed shortly confirm that he COVID-19 vaccine will be compulsory for workers in care homes. Although nothing is yet set in stone, it’s thought that affected staff will have a period of 16 weeks to get vaccinated, or face redeployment and possibly job termination in around 10,000 care homes across England.
It’s thought this will apply to care homes in England that:
Similar rules could be put in place for other healthcare staff. Although nothing is confirmed, here’s what we know so far…
The Government is considering amending the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 to increase vaccine take up
This would mean older adult care home providers could only use those staff who have received the Covid-19 vaccination (or those with a legitimate medical exemption) in line with Government guidance.
The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) explained: ‘older adults in care homes have been significantly affected by the pandemic because of their heightened risk of infection, often with devastating consequences, as well as the risk of outbreaks in these closed settings,’
In this context, a consultation has launched (now closed) seeking views on proposals to make the vaccination a condition of deployment in older adult care homes.
The Social Care subsection of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) has advised that an uptake rate of 80% in staff and 90% in residents in each individual care home setting would be needed to provide a minimum level of protection against outbreaks of COVID-19.
This is for a single dose against the current dominating variant.
As of 4 April, 78.9 per cent of all eligible workers in all older adult care homes had received at least their first vaccination.
However, this masks significant variation at a regional, local and individual care home level. As of 8 April, 89 local authorities have a staff vaccination rate under 80 per cent, including all 32 London Boroughs, while 27 local authorities have a staff vaccination rate under 70 per cent.
The consultation document is currently being translated into a range of languages including Albanian, Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, Kurdish, Nepali, Punjabi, Polish, Romanian, Somali, Turkish, Ukrainian and Urdu.
What is the consultation considering?
Care home managers are ultimately responsible for the safety of people living in their care. Under the proposed change to regulations, it would therefore be their responsibility to check evidence that workers deployed in the home are vaccinated, or medically exempt from vaccination. This means that workers would need to provide evidence to the manager that they have been vaccinated.
As a result, the government is carefully considering the best way for people to prove that they have been vaccinated to their employer. This may involve, for example, showing vaccination status on a mobile phone app. The government is also considering the least burdensome way for people to demonstrate to care home organisations that they are medically exempt from vaccination.
Looking at how this requirement would be introduced, the government is evaluating what would be an appropriate grace period for new and existing care home workers before they are required to be vaccinated. It is likely that care home managers would be expected to keep a record of vaccinations as part of their staff employment and occupational health records.
The intension is to permit care homes to retain a skilled, compassionate and caring workforce, keep the workforce and the people they care for safe, and make working in adult social care an attractive career choice. It is recognised that some people may choose not to be vaccinated, even if the vaccination is clinically appropriate for them. In these circumstances they will no longer be able to be deployed in a care home setting and providers will need to manage this in a way which does not destabilise the provision of safe, high quality care.
Care home managers are being asked to anticipate how they would respond to the requirement, thinking about staff who are not vaccinated. For example, would they expect to redeploy unvaccinated staff or cease employment for unvaccinated staff? These potential options should be taken into consideration.
If you have any queries around this subject, or anything else HR and employment law, give our friendly team a call on 0161 603 2156 to discuss how we could help your business flourish.
We get this question a lot at Supportis… can I ask about an applicant’s health at pre-employment stage?
Only in EXCEPTIONAL circumstances can you ask about an applicant’s health at pre-employment stage such as:
👉 to find out whether a job applicant will be able to carry out an intrinsic part of the job
👉 to find out if a job applicant can take part in any assessment to test their ability to do the job or to find out if reasonable adjustments are needed to enable a disabled job applicant to take part in any assessment
👉 to monitor the diversity of people applying for the job
👉 where another legal requirement means an employer has to ask health- or disability-related questions. For example, Merchant Shipping Regulations prohibit the employment of seafarers unless they have a valid medical fitness certificate
Our key word is NECESSITY – is it absolutely necessary to ask? 💡
Our golden rule is the information relating to health and/disability should be collected separately from other information given in the application for the job ✅
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has recently found that a care agency asked unlawful pre-employment health questions on a job application form.
The National AIDS Trust reported that Elite Careplus Limited (ECL) was questioning applicants’ health during their recruitment process.
The EHRC reminded employers that the Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful for employers to ask about an applicant’s health or disability before they have been offered the job, or before including them in a pool of successful candidates to be offered a role at a later date, except in specified situations.
It has provided this information about pre-employment health questions.
The EHRC Chief Executive said ‘Disabled people often face significant barriers to employment and are twice as likely to be unemployed. No one should be put off from applying for a job out of fear of being asked detailed and unnecessary questions about their health. Employers might think they’re doing the right thing when they ask these questions, but not only are they unlawful, they risk ruling out great potential employees.”’
ECL, which has now changed its practices, previously included a medical questionnaire asking applicants if they ever had a number of health conditions. These included, but were not limited to:
Potential recruits were also asked if there was:
If you have any questions about HR or Employment law, please don’t hesitate to contact our friendly team today on 0161 603 2156 today to discuss how we can assist your business in staying legally compliant.
Ramadan (Tuesday 13th April-Wednesday 12th May 2021) is a period of religious observance for many Muslims and includes fasting from sunrise to sunset.
Here, we discuss ways that employers can support workers to observe religious festivals, specifically during the coronavirus pandemic.
The Muslim Council of Britain have issued guidance for #SafeRamadan, to assist Employers in understanding how the pandemic may affect their Muslim workforce.
Management need to know the Employer’s religious observance policy and treat all workforce the same under it. If allowances are made for one employee’s religious observance but not another employee, it is likely this will amount to direct religious discrimination.
If you don’t have a policy in place or show support as an Employer to employees who observe certain religious practices, this could lead to accusations of and claims for religious discrimination.
It’s likely that fasting employees’ productivity will reduce, especially towards the end of the working day. Management should demonstrate awareness and understanding, avoiding undue penalisation or criticism of such an employee.
Case law shows (Bhatti and another v Pontiac Coils Europe Ltd) that critical comments made to a worker regarding her reduced work productivity levels due to fasting amounted to direct religious discrimination and harassment.
There can be an influx of annual leave requests from employees to observe religious festivals, such as Eid, which brings the fasting period of Ramadan to an end.
Although it may be impractical for the Employer to be able to grant all leave requests for such periods, the Employer should support their religious workforce for all religions in the same way, particularly as the majority of Christian holidays are already provided for as bank/public holidays in the UK.
The Employer should consider carefully requests to be excused from attending work conferences, offsite visists, training and similar events during Ramadan, as a failure to do so might amount to direct and indirect religious discrimination.
Employers should arrange meetings with concerned employees to listen to and understand their reservations on event attendance, and try to reach a compromise. One concern might be networking dinners/drinks at the event if the employee is fasting.
so show patience and understanding to your employees whilst they undergo periods of religious observance.
It has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Asda Stores Ltd v Brierley and others  that Asda workers are entitled to make comparisons in pay whether they are supermarket workers or depot workers.
However, this may lead to implications for employers. The employment tribunal will be responsible for reviewing whether the work performed in these roles are of equal value and whether the reasoning behind Asda not paying the roles equally links to discriminatory reasons.
The same will apply to other supermarkets regarding equal pay claims. Claims from 2016 show that Asda supermarket workers who were predominantly women, were not receiving equal pay in comparison to Asda depot workers who were predominantly men.
Tribunals now face the issue of whether the two roles can compare their pay. It has been concluded that there are fundamental differences between Asda’s distribution and retail sectors. For instance, they are located in different environments, operate in separate industries and evolved separately over time.
Although elements such as hourly pay, bonuses, discount card eligibility, pension contributions and family friendly leave have significant comparisons. Asda have argued that these are not common terms, as both sectors were negotiated in different ways. As a result, Asda’s appeal was unsuccessful and the case has proceeded.
In conclusion, the tribunal deemed that if depot employees were employed at the claimants’ site, they would have been employed on substantially the same terms and would not have received the retail employees’ terms. Following from this the Supreme Court stated that where claimants and comparators are employed under different bargaining agreements, this can be “common terms”. Prolonged enquiries into whether or not comparators would be employed on the same terms depending on their establishment has been discouraged by the Supreme Court, as have appeals relating to the issue. Claimants are now showing that they perform work of an equal value, as the case returns to tribunal.