Advice needed PLEASE. DH's company have shut down - but are refusing to pay the 80% of his wages!

[pleasepleasepleasehelp]

Going into a huge panic right now. DH's company have shut his local branch down today (because of coronavirus,) but have told the staff that they have GOT to go to another branch that's staying open, 20 miles away, with poor public transport, and where the branch already has a full compliment of staff.

19 staff work at DH's branch, and 15 of them don't - and can't drive. They all do odd shifts, (24/7,) and the buses stop at 7pm. So every single one of them is saying they are not going or they simply don't want to go.

None of the staff at the other branch want any of DH's branch there as they need and want their own shifts. DH and the staff at his branch would literally be just sitting there doing naff-all.

There is also the risk of him infecting people (or them infecting him.) Everyone has been told to stay in, and have no unnecessary journeys, and not mix with ANYONE, yet they are expecting DH to go to this other branch 20 miles away, and mix with potentially 100s of other people, when he could spend the 3 weeks just with me.

I am so worried about finances too, as they are saying they won't pay him, and may even risk him facing disciplinary action. The GOVERNMENT have demanded that we all STAY HOME, by LAW, and yet DH's company are demanding that DH goes to another branch, mixing with 100s of people.

Surely if his branch is shutting down, they HAVE to pay him the 80%?!

Also wanted to add, the staff who can't drive, all walk or cycle to work as they live one to two miles away. Getting to the other branch is impossible and the company are not paying travel expenses. And DH is in his late 50s, so in the 'at risk' group!

Is there ANYthing we can do? Anyone we can contact to report this or clarify anything? I am so worried.

It's not the employer that pays 80% wage it's the government. He just needs to find out from dwp if he's eligible which sounds like he would be.

Oh so should be be ringing DWP then?

Employers just aren’t making this any easier are they? If this wasn’t a pandemic I’d be saying to contact a union, ACAS or the HSE but I just don’t know how/if they’re in a position to be of immediate help. Might be worth a shot though?

I hope someone comes along with some decent advice for you.

HR bod here. Firstly the government has not said people cannot work. They have said to work at home where possible and if that's not possible you can travel to work if it is essential.

I am beginning to interpret that as 'if it is essential that you earn a wage'

Now regarding the transfer to another store, it depends if there is a mobility clause in the contract. For retail there usually is. In which case, so long as the employees can get there, be it on public transport or by car, they would be expected to do so.

it's shit but your husband's employer is not really breaking the law here. They don't have to pay people who cannot attend work, I'd argue that they should grant unpaid leave if people don't want to attend wokr but who can afford that. If they can provide work at an alternative location and he has a mobilitiy clause in his contract then they are within their rights to ask people to work there.

BJ does not want to shut down the whole economy. Not yet.

@RainbowFlowers my understanding is that while the government pay it is the company that need to apply for it - a worker cannot do it directly.

That isn't correct. Its a government payment but the employer has to pay it and then reclaim it and the process won't even start opening until the end of April which means businesses which have no cash simply cant afford to furlough workers. Its not a right I'm afraid. Its an option for employers but they need to have the cash available to do it.

PS if it is literally impossible for some people to get there as there aren't the transport links, I'd argue the mobility clause is unenforceable. But so long as trains/buses are running and people have cars then I'd imagine they could - when you say it is impossible to get to the other branch what do you mean?

Woops sorry.... www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-to-employers-and-businesses-about-covid-19/covid-19-guidance-for-employees

What does his contract say?

If it says he may be required to work at other branches from time to time (or similar) then he is probably cornered.

Does being over 50 put you/me in at risk? I hadn't heard that.

Does he belong to a trade union? They may be able to intervene. If not, he needs to send a very calm email to manager explaining that it will take him x hours to walk the twenty miles and he doesn't believe he is fit enough to do it twice a day, every day. Also, that there is no public transport available for certain shifts - what do the employer propose to do?

Just send a really calm factual email and see what they come back with.

@CloudsCanLookLikeSheep Thank you for that, but there are no shifts or hours at the other place. The staff there are worried sick that they will lose hours, and also DH will be mixing with potentially 100s of other people if he goes. Also, the majority of people at his branch don't drive, and can't get there by public transport. So they simply can't go.

Also, the branch 3 miles from DH's is closing too, and they are all being allowed to stay off and get the 80%!

No, his contract states work at his hotel only. Never been asked to work at another one, and there is nothing to say he has to.

For people saying employers are not making things easier, there has been NO guidance from the government to the employers or world at large on this furlough scheme. We're all flying blind. I've got loads of people asking me if it would apply to them as we have sites closing all over the place (work for large multi site organisation) and we just can't give them any info at the moment as no one knows enough about how the scheme will work.

We need the information now, as otherwise people will lose their jobs by default.

His line manager has told head office that all the staff are refusing to go (mainly because they can't,) and the other branch is fully staffed anyway. And it's a smack in the face that the other branch is being allowed to stay at home with 80% pay1

OP if there is no mobility clause in his contract then I'd argue they cannot make him work elsewhere. In which case if they cannot provide work for him they'd be better to furlough him or they'll be in breach of contract if they just don't pay him and he is under a contract of employment with them (technically it sounds like a redundancy situation but I can't see them going through redundancy proceedings at this point)

He's not on zero hours is he as if so they could just not give him work. But if he's on a contract to work x hours per week that will remain in place unless they furlough or make redundant.

From a practical point of view if he does not go to the other branch he's looking at a loss in pay until you could go through the proper systems to reclaim this (ACAS/ employment tribunal). Can you afford for him to dig his heels in at the moment? There will be many people in these kinds of situations so god only knows how long it would take to get his wages back or even if the employer will still exist in a few months time.

No trade union no

@CloudsCanLookLikeSheep Thank you.

Yeah he does actually have a contract - 34 hours a week. So they should be paying him 80% of that for the time he is off.

And as I said, the vast majority of the staff simply cannot get there, and they will not pay them travel expenses.

We COULD weather a few weeks with no pay from him, but if it continues for several months, or even worse, he gets fired, we would be in deep shit.

@CloudsCanLookLikeSheep, I really appreciate that, I honestly do, but when employers are trying to implement measures that put their employees at risk because they contravene distancing rules it’s sticks in the throat a bit.

It’s one thing insisting things carry on as normal but to actively change circumstances to a more dangerous (from a covid POV) situation is completely failing any duty of care they have. Who is risk assessing this stuff?

I bet if OP’s husband asked to see the risk assessments there wouldn’t be any and I don’t think that’s too much to ask from individual businesses at the moment.

@Cornettoninja

Well this is how me and DH are thinking. The government have stated we must all stay home, and yet they are forcing my (almost 60 y.o.) husband to mix with 100s of people (when the other branch nearby is being allowed to stay home!)

And this branch 20 miles away is fully staffed, they don't need anyone else, and people cannot get there as they can't drive.

Employers apply for the 80% from the government and pretty much no- one is really sure how this will work yet.

@ArnoldBee Problem is, my DH's employer is saying they won't do it/they won't pay him.

It's not the employer that pays 80% wage it's the government. He just needs to find out from dwp if he's eligible which sounds like he would be
That information is incorrect.

If, rather than lay staff off, the employer keeps the staff on their books, the employer can (if they wish) apply to HMRC for a grant which covers 80% of their employees' wages (up to a maximum of £2,500 per month per employee).

The company will pay 80% of the wages (up to a maximum of £2.5k per month) to their staff and the grant will be paid by HMRC to the employer.

The employer does not have to claim this grant if they don't wish to though.

moneysoft.co.uk/support/furloughed-workers

It basically applies if they would lay them off. Asking them to work in a different branch isn't the same so if he refuses, I think they could just put him on unpaid leave.

@NotEverythingIsBlackandwhite

Thanks for your help. Do you have a link to that? Because we genuinely thought that if someone's workplace closes down (for 3 or 4 weeks,) that the company in question HAVE to pay 80% of the employees wages.)