Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Awareness of the gender pay gap is at a high, and businesses are coming under increasing scrutiny for their payment practices. Claire Woolf, a Managing Editor at Sparqa Legal, weighs in on the legal issues involved with equal pay and advises businesses on how to avoid the damages that may be caused by unchecked pay disparity.
In January, it was announced that Newswatch presenter Samira Ahmed had won her equal pay case against the BBC, leaving the corporation facing a bill for hundreds of thousands of pounds in back pay and the prospect of similar claims being brought by others.
Ahmed successfully argued that her work is of equal value to presenter Jeremy Vine, who was paid over six times more than her per episode for his work on Points of View. The BBC tried to argue the two presenters perform different roles, requiring different skills but the unanimous judgment said the BBC failed to prove the pay gap wasn’t discriminatory.
The case serves as a useful reminder of the risks of falling foul of the equal pay rules. To help your business avoid being exposed to potential staff grievances, reputational damage or even tribunal claims for compensation, here's everything you need to know about equal pay.
'Equal pay' refers to the fact that women and men have the legal right, set out in the Equality Act 2010, to be paid equally for equal work. In this context, 'pay' refers not only to staff members' wages, but also their contractual benefits packages, including non-discretionary bonuses, performance-related benefits, company cars, sick pay, holiday pay etc.
The general rule is that your staff must be paid the same as other members of your staff, either current or former, of the opposite gender who are, or were, carrying out equal work to them.
For example, if you take on a new male employee and he has negotiated a higher salary than the salary you pay an existing female employee in the same role, her employment contract will normally be automatically modified by the Equality Act to ensure she is paid the same amount as him.
'Equal work' doesn't mean that your staff must be doing identical work, but section 65 of the Equality Act sets out that it must be work which is either similar, e.g if the roles involve similar tasks or require similar skills, rated as equivalent (eg placed in the same grade) by a job evaluation scheme you’ve carried out, or work of equal value.
Work of equal value is work that makes equal demands of your staff, ie the roles require a similar level of skill, training or decision-making even though the jobs are entirely different. For example, a tribunal found that a canteen assistant did work of equal value to three men, each employed as a painter, a joiner and a thermal engineer. Whether or not the roles are of equal value will come down to the specific nature of the work in question.
The BBC's legal team argued that Ahmed was paid the same as her Newswatch predecessor Ray Snoddy, and that he should be her pay comparator rather than Jeremy Vine. They argued that Vine and Ahmed’s roles were different, as the presenter of Points of View needed to have 'a glint in the eye' and to be ‘cheeky’. The employment tribunal found it difficult to translate this into the relevant skills, experience or qualifications required to do the job properly and found that their work was broadly similar and that Vine was a suitable comparator.
[ymal]
The only exception to the equal pay rules is set out in section 69 of the Equality Act and explained by the House of Lords in Glasgow City Council v Marshall. This is that if you have a genuine and material reason for paying male and female staff members differently, that does not relate to gender, you may be justified in doing so. However, this exception won’t apply if there is another way of addressing the issue which leads to less or no discrimination.
There is no list of specified aims or practices that are justified; it will always depend on the particular situation. In Dr Pamela Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority and Another, the court said it could be justified where the male comparator was more qualified than the woman and it was difficult to hire individuals with his particular skills or experience. In other cases, geographical differences have provided justification, e.g you have a staff member who works in London where the cost of living is higher, whilst another employee works at a location outside of London.
The BBC was unable to produce evidence to prove any of the material factors it put forward to defend the difference in pay, and the tribunal specifically commented on the lack of transparency in its pay structures.
In this Article - Thousands owed could amount to more than £30m.
Earlier this month the demise of UpCounsel was announced despite the fact the online lawyer marketplace had raised $26 million from keen investors. The company was accused of flouting ethics rules and competition laws following a 2018 lawsuit, and even though the case settled in 2019, UpCounsel were also accused of ‘brazenly’ violating a Californian bar rule that prohibits lawyers from sharing legal fees with non-lawyers[1].
UpCounsel sold themselves as being an “Uber” of legal services, linking freelance lawyers with small businesses or other would-be clients. The ‘online lawyer’ would assist businesses with their legal needs; from a one off consultation to being available as a freelance legal department, UpCounsel maintained a network of over 5,000 lawyers specialising in an array of legal sectors, from immigration to IP.
From consumers being able to click next day delivery and being able to set up your weekly medical subscriptions online, the worldwide web has thrust itself into every profession, mostly, for the better.
Since the news broke of their shutdown, the Upcounsel’s co-founders managed to find a way to keep their doors open by reaching an agreement where the company will be under new ownership. This was good news for many as stakeholders, freelance lawyers and businesses using their services were concerned about what impact their closure would have.
With the reliance on technology and its advantages growing, we cannot dismiss the impact it is having on our social construct and our demands. Remember when you had to fight to use the landline to phone your friend when someone else was on the internet, or locate your nearest hardware store which may be miles away, instead of simply clicking on Amazon Prime? We are now in an era where everything is fast-paced; we demand things almost immediately, with no delays with little inconvenience and no extortionate added costs.
From consumers being able to click next day delivery and being able to set up your weekly medical subscriptions online, the worldwide web has thrust itself into every profession, mostly, for the better. But how has the legal sector adapted to this? With the legal profession being slow to move with the times, famously clinging onto tradition, will online legal services, like UpCounsel, that sell itself on ease, on-demand advice and responses, with smaller bills to pay at the end of it, overtake and replace lawyers?
There are, however, consumers relying on online services, but again with some apprehension.
Perhaps the question is a little dramatic, especially when considering AI. Lawyers will always be needed. In fact, the US Bureau of Labour Statistics state that the employment of lawyers is projected to grow 6 per cent from 2018 to 2028, about as fast as the average for all occupations[2]. But when it comes to legal advice, from a human, rather than a bot, we can see why an SME would rely on a freelance, online lawyer – especially if there is little difference between the level of professionalism and outcome of their service.
In 2019, 8/10 of top UK firms identified technology as the key challenge to growth in the next 2-3 years[3]. Research has also found that consumer confidence around engaging with the legal services market, and the decisions needed to do so, is low[4].
There are, however, consumers relying on online services, but again with some apprehension. This is likely due to being presented with an array of answers for one simple question. With the law being precise, we need to make sure our online searches correctly guide us, as it is often difficult to navigate yourself to decide what is best. Therefore, there is somewhat a higher demand for online legal services as consumers do see potential in a more valuable, official and independent 'legal advice and guidance site’, which they could recognise as the ‘go to’ site for legal advice.
Thus, the introduction of online lawyers and sites like UpCounsel. But what about the companies challenging a bigger, often overlooked part of the legal sphere: the tense conflict between parties and unwanted legal fees. Take online divorce services company amicable, for example. Kate Daly, alongside her good friend Pip Wilson, wanted to offer a tech-enabled, lawyer free alternative to divorce, separation and co-parenting. Uniquely, amicable focuses on the emotional journey as well as the law, and is different from traditional services because they work with the couple, when lawyers only work with one side. They also write up all the legal paperwork (where mediators do not).
Although, nearly 8% of the UK population do not access online services, so clearly there is a small proportion of people that online services will not reach.
Kate’s messy divorce motivated her to start amicable, leading us to question the current divorce process.
“My divorce was about as messy, unpleasant and expensive as it could get. We outsourced our communications to two different lawyers. The battle lines were drawn and both of us were set for the long and bloody fight ahead. I paid almost £80,000 in fees”, shares Kate.
“At the end of the process all that was left was a huge conflict and a financial settlement neither of us was happy with.”
A twist on the traditional approach to law, amicable aims to eliminate the adversarial approach in divorce and separation and provide an end to end divorce service.
Are they replacing the need for lawyers in divorce? “There's no need to seek separate legal counsel unless there are danger signs. amicable uses a combination of technology, para-legal staff and non-practising solicitors to draft all divorce and financial paperwork. Customers remain Litigant in Person and sign and submit all their documents to the court themselves”, explains Kate.
Making a complex system simpler and friendlier seems to bode well for amicable, leading us to question if lawyers need to address this in order to make the current, traditional system easier for those undergoing divorce.
Clearly, the object at hand here is trying to simplify an often heated and complex process.
Although, nearly 8% of the UK population do not access online services, so clearly there is a small proportion of people that online services will not reach. However, as a digital service there are significant benefits that outweigh this such as, as Kate explains:
With emotions and not the assets that complicate a case, HNWI also rely on the service as amicable happily refers their clients to specialists for information or neutral advice in the case of complicated Trusts or offshore assets as part of our process too.
Clearly, the object at hand here is trying to simplify an often heated and complex process. Whether it is finding an ‘amicable’ way to resolve conflict or lessening fees, client’s demands are changing.
We cannot predict where technology will take us, but what we can say is that more and more people are now looking for an easier way to interact with their lawyers. From having instantaneous conversations and being able to maintain that connection whilst on the other side of the globe, the internet and technology will have a big part to play in the legal sphere. Law firms and lawyers alike should look for ways to constantly update their working lives, in order to meet such demands.
[1] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/online-lawyer-marketplace-upcounsel-to-shut-down?context=search&index=1
[2] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/legal/lawyers.htm
[3] https://www.pwc.co.uk/industries/business-services/law-firms/survey.html
[4] https://www.legalservicesboard.org.uk/what_we_do/Research/Publications/pdf/understanding_consumer_needs_from_legal_information_sources_final_report.pdf
Effeffe is a producer of private label pet food located in Pieve Porto Morone.
The acquisition of Effeffe fits in the strategy of United Petfood to further strengthen its position in the international market; it will also enable the company to expand its business in the Italian market. The acquisition brings new growth opportunities and additional technological possibilities. The partnership also gives the group a strong base and continuity for all stakeholders.The Italian company has more than 30 years of experience in the private label pet food industry and employs 85 people.
United Petfood and Waterland were assisted for legal aspects by LMCR, with a team made up of Massimo La Torre, Leopoldo Giannini and Emanuele Campanaro.
The seller was assisted by Ergon Legal & Tax, with a team composed of Luca Shortglieri and Michela Catenaccio.
The lending banks, with ING Bank as agent bank, were assisted by Marco Lantelme, Martina Cacciatore and Cecilia Pepe at BSVA.
Arkios acted as the seller's financial adviser.
When working with the legal advisers of the other parties, a joint effort is always to be made to coordinate the financing side with the M&A side.
Interview with Marco Lantelme at BSVA
Please tell me about your involvement in the deal when advising ING Bank N.V.
We were involved in the transaction as Italian counsel to the Lenders and to the agent bank, ING Bank N.V.. We drafted all the documents for the Italian law aspects regarding the financing side of the transaction. We also provided legal advice on the financing side in the context of the share purchase by the new holder of the shares in the Italian target company Effeffe Pet Food S.p.A.. This also entailed working on all ancillary documents on behalf of the banks, by addressing the critical legal aspects in conjunction with the closing of the transaction. Our services included the drafting and/or revision of all relevant agreements and of the specific corporate approvals and procedures related to the transaction. The team was led by Marco Lantelme.
On the finance side, accurate legal work was to be provided in the context of the facilities which United Petfood Producers (UPP) has access to, by addressing the Italian side of the transaction on a comprehensive basis.
What problems may arise when working with the legal advisers of the other parties?
Transactions of this kind have several challenges. The most important challenge is always to have a tailor-made security package provided in line with the features and timeline of the transaction, often in the context of international facilities arrangements already in place which the fund may access to.
When working with the legal advisers of the other parties, a joint effort is always to be made to coordinate the financing side with the M&A side.
How do you overcome these issues to ensure all parties are happy by the close of transaction?
As it sometimes happens for these transactions, the financing can be sought once specific issues are addressed, including changing by-laws of the Italian target company, ensuring a solid and sound security mechanism and having a good set of security documents in place.
The security package is set to address the needs from different angles. Many technical and coordination aspects are be looked into to achieve a smooth execution of the transaction documents.
Šelih & Partnerji advised Supernova on its EUR 220 million acquisition of seven shopping malls and five smaller shopping centres from Centrice Real Estate GmbH, a member of America's Lone Star fund. The sellers were advised by Rojs, Peljhan, Prelesnik & Partnerji, including Partner Sergej Omladic and Senior Associate Rok Kokalj.
Šelih & Partnerji's team was led by Partner Blaz Ogorevc, assisted by Senior Associate Miha Stravs.
Lawyer Monthly spoke to the team at Šelih & Partnerji
As legal adviser to Supernova, can you share the objectives you had achieved, and the challenges you overcame in order to do so?
Real estate and construction have always been one of the core practices of Šelih & Partnerji, but in recent years, the firm has especially established prominence in its involvement in large retail property transactions. Advising either the sellers, buyers or the financing parties, we have been involved in transactions which have included over 50% of all the larger shopping and retail centres in Slovenia.
We first reviewed the portfolio that was the subject of the present transaction in 2011 as part of the internal reorganisation, then in 2013, we advised on the corporate and asset restructuring of the same. Again, in 2015, we advised on the sell-side when 23 Slovenian properties were sold.
While most of the large real estate transactions in the past years were more or less distressed or restructuring deals, this was a more “normal” market deal and this reflects also the situation in the Slovenian M&A market in general.
In this transaction, we advised the buyer in an acquisition of the major part of the same portfolio. While in the first few of the aforementioned cases we partnered with some of the most prominent regional law firms, in the last deal we were involved in, we were engaged directly by the foreign investor for this portfolio. This shows that we are trusted also by major foreign market players and are recognised to have the experience and the capacity to work on the largest deals in Slovenia and in the region.
In addition, we consider Supernova to be one of our most important clients with whom we share business values and work ethics, which makes working with them a valuable experience. They are certainly one of the clients who we have desired to work for, for some time. We have gotten to know the client’s team in some of our previous deals (when we were working on the opposing side) and we were very happy when they also recognised the potential for a longstanding trusted relationship.
Why is this a good deal for all involved?
The deal was demanding for its size and complexity of financing, however, it was closed smoothly due to the well-structured escrow mechanism and due to good cooperation of all parties involved. In term of substance, the deal represents the final exit of a financial investor and affirmation of Supernova’s strategic and long-term presence on the market.
How does this transaction represent the current M&A climate in Slovenia?
While most of the large real estate transactions in the past years were more or less distressed or restructuring deals, this was a more “normal” market deal and this reflects also the situation in the Slovenian M&A market in general.
Zalando, Europe's leading online platform for fashion and lifestyle, continues its assortment strategy to pursue a complementary approach with its partner brands. As a consequence, Zalando sells subsidiary KICKZ Never Not Ballin' GmbH to Play Hard GmbH, represented by Jacob Fatih and Philipp Buchholtz. The acquisition is expected to be completed in the first quarter of this year. Play Hard GmbH is a subsidiary of Crealize GmbH. As a company creator, Crealize develops new business models and companies.
Zalando acquired KICKZ in 2017 to gain access to basketball and streetwear products and attract customers that were not yet part of the platform. In the last two years, Zalando expanded its assortment to an extent that largely overlaps with the KICKZ offering.
The company reviewed the KICKZ business over recent months and came to the conclusion that it does not contribute to the refined strategy. With this, Zalando decided to sell KICKZ to an experienced buyer team.
The sale does not affect KICKZ employee contracts in substance. The KICKZ webstore and the eleven physical KICKZ stores will continue their operations without changes.
Advisers for Play Hard / Crealize
Schmidt von der Osten & Huber (Essen): led by Dr. Jochen Lehmann, Dr Moritz Kraft (Corporate/ M&A), Dr. Notker Lützenrath (IP), Dr Hans-Jörg Schulze (Real Estate Law), Dr Fabian Boensch, Dr Hauke Hein (Labour Law)
BTU Treuhand (Munich): Peter Häussermann, Gregor Wenzel (Tax Law) - known from the market
Consultants for Zalando
Inhouse Law (Berlin): led by Ramona Bobbert (Head of Corporate Law), Nadin Michel (Corporate), Dr Michael Menz (General Counsel), Dr Janis Baumert (Employment Law), Fabian Piltz (IP), Dr Thomas Riedel (Tax)
The Eranove Group in the context of the development and financing of the Kékéli Efficient Power tri-fuel power plant, located in Lomé in Togo, have decided to develop and operate this power plant, which will be built by the Spanish group Grupo TSK. The turbines, technology and maintenance services for the power plant will be provided by Siemens.
The financing, amounting to 45.6 billion CFAFs (30 million euros), was all raised by African financial institutions with several senior tranches and a mezzanine tranche. The financing was arranged by BOAD and Oragroup with various institutional and commercial lenders (BOAD, AFC, Orabank Togo, BIA Togo, NSIA Benin and Banque Atlantique Togo). GuarantCo also provided a liquidity extension guarantee of 14.2 billion CFAF.
With an installed capacity of 65 MW and operating according to combined cycle technology, the Kékéli Efficient Power plant will provide Togo with a crucial additional source of stable electricity production by 2021.
Orrick was involved in the preparation and negotiation of all project contracts, in particular the concession agreement, the energy purchase contract and the EPC contract, as well as in the context of the negotiation of financing documents and financial closing.
On aspects of Togolese law, Eranove was advised by Martial Akakpo & Associates.
The Togolese Republic was advised by Maître Héctor Farina.
Allen & Overy acted on behalf of the financial parties and GuarantCo.
The investment company BSC – Blackstone Soluções Corporativas, which operates as an investment company in Brazil, bought all the shares of Grupo Açoforja - a medium/heavy capacity open Forging Company, which manufactures steel forgings, such as parts underdrawing, pre-machined (rough machined) or finished machined, and heat-treated parts.
Marcos Martins Advogados advised BSC – Blackstone Soluções Corporativas S.A. with Marcos Martins da Costa Santos, Jayme Petra de Mello Neto and Angelo Ambrizzi.
Azevedo Sette advised Arca Administrações e Participações Ltda., Arca Agroindustrial Ltda., Açoforja Indústria de Forjados S.A. and others Grupo Açoforja’s selling shareholders with Ana Paula Caldeira, Eduardo Monteiro Moreira César, Luiza Elena Ribeiro Cardoso and Yan Souza Pereira.
The range of challenges are broad and there is never a deal that goes without them.
Interview with the team at Marcos Martins Advogados
When executing the 100% stake in an acquisition, what are the factors you must consider as legal advisers?
The first factor a legal adviser must bear in mind is the goals of the client and how to achieve them. A legal adviser in a deal such as the acquisition of a 100% stake will face many opinions, advice and hear-say from all of their client’s other technical advisers. However, the goals of the clients should come first-hand and they should not be overlapped by technicalities that are not significant to the deal framework or its legal consistency.
The second, but no less important factor, is the forecast and prevention of future unwanted risks by the client. The deal must be structured in a way that the legal documents, such as minutes of agreements, serves as cornerstones to support the entire structure. Otherwise, the whole deal will be compromised in a short time. It is the view that the deal does not end by signing the agreements. It will linger for years to come.
The decisions of a takeover are never of short-term consequences.
What issues may arise during such acquisitions and how do you and your team work around them?
The range of challenges are broad and there is never a deal that goes without them. The most common challenges arise from a lack of alignment among the ranks. Lawyers, advisers, accountants, financial personnel all must be aligned to meet the challenges as they appear.
Our team of legal advisers are trained to respond to challenges by always creating a multidisciplinary forum of debates and implementing the solutions the forum has envisioned. We believe that such team work is the key factor to overcoming challenges in a 100% stake acquisition.
As legal advisers, how do you ensure that the decisions made during the takeover are ones that will remain to have a positive impact in years to come?
The decisions of a takeover are never of short-term consequences. It is standard procedure to consider all the aspects in view of the future governance of the target company. For that matter, as legal advisers, we check and review, simulating future events, the decisions and how to best imprint the long-term solidity expected by the client in the resulting documents.
The impact of coronavirus is widespread and global. In the face of a potential worldwide disaster, governments are begnning to adopt precautionary meaures and put in place tools for those that can't afford to be affected. According to Bob Trunchion, tax partner at MHA MacIntyre Hudson, a myriad of businesses becoming insolvent will only add salt to the wound.
The coronavirus threat is worrying enough for the UK economy but an upswing in company insolvencies in its wake would make the situation even worse.
Cash flow is the number one cause of business failure and the disruption the viral outbreak may bring could therefore lead to a substantial increase in business failures. The government’s COVID-19 action plan, published yesterday, claims the government will consider whether cash strapped businesses can use its Time to Pay (TPP) scheme, on a case-by-case basis, to make tax payments more manageable. We believe this will be an inadequate measure if the outbreak escalates.
TTP works well but the process is bureaucratic and HMRC requires a lot of information before agreeing it can be applied. The business also needs to formulate a repayment plan, which isn’t always possible in the midst of a crisis. In addition, TTP doesn’t cover the major ongoing expense of business rates, only taxes administered by HMRC.
A major virus outbreak in the UK, that includes quarantine measures, falling demand for products and services and a lack of staff availability will put companies in a very difficult situation. While sales would fall, costs such as rents, rates, mortgages and payments to suppliers and staff will remain constant.
A major virus outbreak in the UK, that includes quarantine measures, falling demand for products and services and a lack of staff availability will put companies in a very difficult situation.
A key measure for the Chancellor to consider for the Budget is a ‘tax holiday’ for major business costs like rates, PAYE tax, national insurance contributions and VAT. The holiday could be implemented if the outbreak worsens and the economy suffers. Usually tax holidays or temporary reductions in tax are used to boost growth; but in this case would help prevent company bankruptcies.
In addition, HMRC needs to adapt and allow time to pay self-assessment income tax and corporation tax in more flexible ways. The upcoming budget is a key moment for Chancellor Rishi Sunak to reassure the business community. Hopefully he will rise to the challenge.
What's Next for Brexit?
With the UK now having left the EU, and the transition period underway, it’s time for businesses to start preparing for a new trading landscape. But where should they start, and which key dates could impact their plans, as the UK/EU trade negotiations begin?
Nick Farmer, international advisory partner at accountancy firm, Menzies LLP, explains what we can expect to see in the coming year.
Although the UK left the EU on 31 January, it will remain part of the EU customs union and single market until 31 December 2020. This means that during this transition period, businesses can continue to trade in the EU without tariffs, customs checks or other regulatory restrictions. For many, it’s basically business as usual for now.
Additionally, EU Directives will continue to apply during the transition period, and this can assist with eliminating withholding taxes on dividend, interest and royalty payments. However, as the UK has formally left the EU, there may be immediate implications for such payments from third countries where reliance is being placed on a tax treaty. For instance, this can arise in tax treaties with the US, where the limitation on benefits provision may require EU/EEA membership to benefit from reduced rates of withholding taxes.
Trade negotiations between the UK and EU will be ongoing throughout 2020, with the hope that a new UK/EU trade agreement will be in place by the end of the year. In relation to trade with non-EU territories, the UK currently benefits from EU trade agreements that cover more than 70 countries, and these will also fall away at the end of the year.
With so many new trade relationships to be forged before then, it is clear that these trade negotiations are likely to dominate the political agenda in 2020. Businesses may be tempted to wait to see if the current transition period will be extended, but this seems unlikely, as an extension of one or two years would only be possible if both the UK and EU agree to it, before 1 July 2020, and the UK government has currently ruled out this option.
It is clear that these trade negotiations are likely to dominate the political agenda in 2020.
Throughout the transition period, it will therefore be important for UK-based businesses to keep a close eye on the progress of all ongoing trade negotiations, paying particular attention to areas of the world where their goods or services are being sold. They should consider what trade agreements they are currently taking advantage of, and how they could adapt their footprint or trading activities if negotiations take a turn for the worse.
The US is an important export market for many UK companies, and the government is hoping to secure a favourable trade deal. However, there are some potential deal breakers in play, including the UK’s proposed Digital Services Tax, which could cause the US to impose punitive tariffs on selected UK imports. The forthcoming post-Brexit budget statement on 11 March could bring an announcement on this subject.
Among the key changes to take effect from the start of 2021 are the removal of EU tax directives. These are important to businesses that have activity in the EU. For instance, the Parent-Subsidiary Directive currently allows money to flow from EU subsidiaries to a UK-based parent company, without incurring a withholding tax liability whereas, after 31 December, reliance on tax treaties may result in local withholding tax of between 5 and 10 percent. Similarly, the removal of The EU Interest and Royalties Directive will affect cross-border interest and royalty payments made into a UK-based corporate entity in the same way.
[ymal]
In preparation for the potential VAT and customs changes from 1 January 2021, businesses should consider mapping supply chains and pinpointing where tariffs, including import VAT and customs duties, may apply. Customer and supplier contracts should be reviewed in respect of terms of sale and delivery, in order to check which party is the importer of record and ensure the relevant Economic Operator Registration and Identification (EORI) numbers have been applied for.
Completion of customs declarations must be addressed, and key responsibilities within the business established. Employers should be asking questions about whether their staff are suitably trained, if additional staff may be required, what systems may be necessary, and where potential additional costs for undertaking the work, either in house, or externally through an agent, may arise. Quantifying these factors as far as possible can ensure they are in the best position to take advantage of any additional support that may be needed, for example, grants from HMRC.
If import VAT and customs duties are due to be paid, the cash flow impact of paying and reclaiming this should be considered, along with the actual cost of incurring customs duties, which are not reclaimable and so may affect pricing.
Businesses must start preparing for a very different trading and fiscal landscape from the start of next year. While there is still much uncertainty surrounding Britain’s free trade negotiations, there are clear steps that businesses can take now to mitigate the financial effects of the post-Brexit landscape.
In order to restrict the spread of the virus, people are being asked to self-isolate if they have visited certain areas of the world recently, even if they aren’t displaying any symptoms.
Self-isolation means remaining indoors in one place and avoiding contact with other people. People shouldn’t go to work, school or public areas, and should avoid using public transport.
Laura Kearsley, partner and solicitor in the employment team at law firm Nelsons, discusses what this means for employees – and whether they can expect to be paid for their absence during the quarantine period.
Strictly speaking, there is no right to sick pay for anyone in self-isolation as technically, it’s just a precaution and they are not considered ‘sick’.
However, Health Secretary Matt Hancock has said those who aren’t displaying symptoms but have been advised to stay away from work are entitled to take the time as sick leave.
If you’re not unwell, you may be able to work from home. But if this isn’t an option – for example, you work in a shop, hotel or factory – you will be entitled to sick pay, as per government advice.
Statutory sick pay (SSP) is available to those who are employed, earning at least £118 a week and have been off work for four consecutive days. The current rate of SSP is £94.25 per week and can be paid for up to a maximum of 28 weeks for the days employees usually work. SSP is payable after three ‘waiting days’ of absence. It’s up to your employer – and should be set out in your contract – as to whether you’re paid more than SSP.
[ymal]
However, if you haven’t visited any of the areas the government has identified as being affected or at risk and you decide to self-isolate as a precaution, there is no statutory right to be paid if you aren’t sick or displaying symptoms. People who are prevented from working because of a risk to public health are able to claim universal credit.
You are entitled to take a reasonable amount of emergency unpaid time off work to take care of your kids if there is unexpected disruption in their normal care arrangements – the closure of a nursery or school as a result of the coronavirus would qualify as an emergency. However, this is not time off to look after the child, but to make alternative arrangements for their care instead.
Many employers are more flexible though in these circumstances and will allow employees to take holiday at short notice or, if appropriate, to work from home or make the time up.
There is no rule to say that your employer shouldn’t contact you when you’re off sick to discuss any work issues. In fact, employers are under a duty of care to check in with those who are absent. Regular contact with your boss during the quarantine period will also help to ensure a smooth return.
