Backhouse Jones’ latest COVID-19 webinar was packed with useful information for operators. Peter Jackson recaps some of the key pieces of advice
Entitled ‘Back to business,’ transport law firm Backhouse Jones’ latest webinar brought operators up to speed with the latest industry developments relating to COVID-19, offering advice on an array of different topics. [wlm_nonmember][…]
By subscribing you will benefit from:
- Operator & Supplier Profiles
- Face-to-Face Interviews
- Lastest News
- Test Drives and Reviews
- Legal Updates
- Route Focus
- Industry Insider Opinions
- Passenger Perspective
- Vehicle Launches
- and much more!
Solicitor Laura Hadzik began the presentation by looking at the use of face coverings on public transport, which is mandatory in England from Monday 15 June. She explained that all passengers will be required to wear some form of covering with the exception of very young children, the disabled and those with breathing difficulties. Drivers were not included in Transport Secretary Grant Shapps’ announcement, meaning they are not currently required to wear a face covering by law.
She then discussed what would happen if people chose not to comply with the new rules: “The government is expecting that the majority of people will comply, but Mr Shapps confirmed that people are to be refused travel or even fined if they don’t. How this enforcement will work in practice is not yet known, and I appreciate there are concerns over whether your drivers are going to be expected to police this, which potentially puts them at greater risk.
“What I would say is that drivers should be asking passengers when they’re boarding without a face covering why they’re not wearing one, and then refuse travel to those passengers in circumstances where the passenger doesn’t fall within one of the exemptions. Clearly this presents its own difficulties, as if somebody claims to be exempt the driver is probably going to have to take that at face value or risk some form of discrimination issue or claim.
“There may also be scenarios in which passengers onboard are challenging other passengers travelling without face coverings; what’s the driver expected to do in these scenarios? Unfortunately, this is a question which remains unanswered. I would emphasise that you shouldn’t be asking your drivers to do anything which could put them at any greater risk.”
Laura then moved on to discuss the newly-announced requirement for visitors to the UK to self-isolate for 14 days. The regulation came into force on 8 June, and refers to PSV drivers as being exempt along with HGV drivers. However, Laura stressed that this is not a ‘blanket exemption.’ “The driver must be entering the country for work purposes and must be able to demonstrate that the travel is part of their job, by providing a letter from their employer or an operator’s licence for example,” she explained. “The exemption does not apply to drivers returning to the UK from annual leave, and they will be required to self-isolate for 14 days.”
Returning to employment
Solicitor Stephanie Walkerdine was next to present, and gave an overview of the process of returning staff to a normal wage as the furlough scheme begins to wind down. She began by outlining the current timeline for the furlough scheme up to October, where the government proposes to lower its contribution to employees’ wages from 70% in September to 60%, a marked difference from the 80% contribution it is currently making until the end of August.
She then began busting some myths surrounding the furlough scheme, beginning with the idea that a business can make somebody redundant based on the ‘last in first out’ principle: “I am aware that years ago that probably was a very common and well-known way of selecting people for redundancy, however nowadays we would tend to describe such an approach as a bit of a blunt instrument. If you only use somebody’s length of service as a basis for selecting them for redundancy, it is highly likely to result in claims for both unfair dismissal and indirect discrimination. Using length of service as part of a redundancy process is lawful however, as it can be justified as a way of maintaining a stable workforce and rewarding loyalty.
“The next myth is ‘if an employee refuses to return to work from furlough, there’s nothing I can do.’ The main point here really is that each individual’s circumstances need to be considered on a case by case basis because, particularly for those who are vulnerable or are shielding, they are less likely to be comfortable to return to work.
“If, on the other hand, you’ve got someone who isn’t shielding or vulnerable and they still fail to return to work or refuse to come back – and if the public health guidance is that they are able to return to work safely and you have safe working practices and risk assessments in place – it’s more likely that you could regard their ongoing absence as unauthorised. This means it would be possible to investigate them on the basis of a disciplinary matter for failing to carry out a reasonable working instruction in returning to work, as well as the misconduct aspect from their unauthorised absence.
“However, if you’ve got someone who isn’t willing to return because they’ve got childcare issues or because they are shielding, under the scheme they are still eligible to be furloughed. So, I think the most important thing there is to consider whether you can continue to furlough them; if not, maybe you could agree unpaid parental leave.”
Backhouse Jones will be continuing to host webinars discussing COVID-19 and the implications for the road transport industry as a whole. For details on future events and to access the firm’s latest guidance, visit: https://www.backhousejones.co.uk/covid-19-resource-hub/
[/wlm_ismember]