Category Archives: hong-kong

Categories hong-kong

Lewis Silkin – Some important pointers about EU Settlement Scheme-related deadlines

The main EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) deadline is looming on 30 June 2021, however there are other deadlines and considerations that applicants and their employers may not be aware of.

Text:

In this article we highlight a selection of issues that relate to the main deadline, or that will start to have practical implications after 30 June 2021.

Main EU Settlement Scheme deadline on 30 June 2021

This deadline for EUSS applications applies to EEA nationals and eligible family members with residence rights under EU law who were living in the UK by 11 pm GMT on 31 December 2020 and who have not broken their continuous residence period by the time they come to make their application.

This deadline applies both to applications for pre-settled and settled status, and irrespective of whether the person is inside or outside of the UK at the time they make their application. It is worth remembering that those who previously acquired a right of permanent residence in the UK are (with limited exceptions) able to apply under the scheme if, at the time they apply, they have not been absent from the UK for more than five continuous years. It is not necessary for them to re-enter the UK to make the application.

Those who have been absent from the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic should consider whether they are still eligible to apply under the EUSS and ensure they apply on time, even if they currently remain outside the UK. Specific COVID-19 absence policies have also been published by the Home Office in relation to the EU Settlement Scheme, which may benefit some who have been outside the UK for up to 12 months.

A person who has broken the continuity of their residence should check whether they can apply as a joining family member of a person who has been granted pre-settled or settled status under the scheme.

People with an outstanding British citizenship process

A person who has already applied for British citizenship using their permanent residence document or card must ensure they make an EUSS application by 30 June 2021 if British citizenship has not been conferred by this date. This is because making an application for British citizenship does not extend a person’s immigration permission, so an immigration application will be required to maintain lawful immigration status while the citizenship process is outstanding.

It is important to note that where a person must attend a citizenship ceremony as part of the process, citizenship is not conferred until the ceremony has taken place.

People who hold an EEA family permit

The 30 June 2021 deadline for making an application under the EUSS also applies to those who hold an EEA family permit, even if, on the face of the permit, it is due to expire on a later date. This has the potential to cause confusion for applicants and it is likely that there will be some people who miss it.

People who hold an EU Settlement Scheme family permit

EUSS family permit holders must apply under the EUSS within three months of their arrival in the UK, or before their EUSS family permit expires, whichever is earlier.
EUSS family permits are issued for either six months, or for four months from the intended date of arrival for those who are intending to arrive more than three months after the date of decision on the permit.

The same potential confusion issue applies as for EEA family permit holders.

There is also an additional deadline for certain joining spouses and civil partners of Swiss citizens. Where the spouse or civil partnership relationship was formed between 11 pm GMT on 31 December 2020 and 31 December 2025, the individual must ensure that they make their EUSS application while their EUSS family permit is valid, within three months of their arrival, and by 31 December 2025.

People with immigration permission under the Immigration Rules

There are EUSS applicants to whom the main 30 June 2021 deadline would otherwise apply, but who hold limited immigration permission under the Immigration Rules (other than under the EUSS), or outside the Immigration Rules. Where their immigration permission expires on or after 1 July 2021, they must make their EUSS application before expiry.

Although technically an application made by such a person after 30 June 2021 will be considered to be late, the Immigration Rules provide that as long as the application is submitted before the expiry of the immigration permission, this will be deemed to be reasonable grounds for missing the deadline. A person who applies before the expiry of their immigration permission will be covered by a statutory extension of their immigration permission and will still be in the UK lawfully, including having the same immigration conditions, until the EUSS application process (including any related administrative review or appeal) is complete.

People who stop being exempt from immigration control

An EUSS applicant who stops being exempt from immigration control on or after 1 July 2021 will be deemed to have reasonable grounds for missing the 30 June 2021 deadline, provided they apply within 90 days of their exemption stopping. The 90-day period starts on the day the person stops being exempt.

Children born etc in the UK on or after 1 April 2021

Children who are born, adopted or otherwise come within the scope of the definition of ‘child’ for the purposes of the EUSS (which includes certain children born through surrogacy or who are the subject of certain guardianship arrangements) must make their EUSS application within three months of their birth or other relevant event that brings them within the scope of the ‘child’ definition.

It will of course be important also to check whether such children are British by birth, or eligible to apply for British citizenship, either immediately or once their parent receives settled status.

Certain family members of British citizens who have been exercising free movement rights in the EEA

Certain family members of British citizens who have been exercising free movement rights in the EEA by 11 pm GMT on 31 December 2020 and have not already returned must enter the UK, with or after their British citizen family member, and make their EUSS application by 11 pm GMT on 29 March 2022. Any application would also have to be made before the expiry of their EUSS family permit.

The eligibility requirements for these family members are complex, so specific advice may be required.

People with a UK residence card issued under the EEA Regulations

UK residence cards issued under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (the EEA Regulations) will no longer be valid after 30 June 2021. This will potentially cause practical issues for visa national family members of EEA nationals, because even if they have been granted permission under the EUSS, they will not have valid physical evidence of their UK immigration permission to show to transport carriers before boarding. Other people with permission under the EUSS may also prefer to have a valid physical document, for example to show a right of return to the UK to foreign governments when making visa applications.

It is possible to apply for an EUSS biometric residence card (BRC) to be issued to address these problems. Doing this is advisable so that a valid card is in place ahead of any travel needs arising.

The Home Office has recently confirmed in an email to stakeholders that due to a surge of applications to issue or replace BRCs, since 23 April 2021 some applicants are being invited to use an Identity Verification (IDV) app as part of the application process rather than attending a UKVCAS service point to provide their biometrics. This may speed up the process for some applicants.

People who have already been granted pre-settled status under the EUSS

They must make a further application under the EUSS before the expiry of their existing pre-settled status. In many cases however, applicants may qualify for settled status well ahead of this expiry, and may apply for this as soon as they become eligible.

What happens if the relevant deadline is missed?

It is possible to make a late application under the EUSS. Where this happens, the applicant must show reasonable grounds for failing to meet the relevant deadline as part of the application.

The initial guidance issued by the Home Office states that for the time-being following 30 June 2021, applicants will be given the benefit of any doubt on this issue, unless this would not be reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. The Home Office will also engage with applicants to give them a reasonable opportunity to put forward their grounds. The guidance will however be revised at a later date, and it is likely that it will become more restrictive as time goes on.

With the exception of those who still have a valid EUSS family permit, a person who is making a late application will be an overstayer while the application is under consideration.

While in the UK as an overstayer, the person would not be allowed to work or rent private accommodation. They may also be charged for accessing the NHS between the time they become an overstayer and the time they submit their EUSS application.

A baby born in the UK would not be overstayer, but would be subject to NHS charging beyond the first three months after their birth, or until they depart the UK (if earlier). 

Those who are ultimately unsuccessful in their EUSS application will likely need to apply under the Immigration Rules. Although this is an area that may see reform in the future with regard to failed EUSS applicants, the present position is that for those applying in some routes, including work routes, this could involve a re-entry ban of at least 12 months.

If you have any queries on the deadlines or need assistance with an application, please contact a member of our Immigration Team.

 

Related Item(s): Immigration & Global Mobility, BREXIT, Immigration

Contributor(s): Andrew Osborne, Kathryn Denyer

Categories hong-kong

Lewis Silkin – Home Office announces end to COVID-19 adjusted right to work checks

The Home Office confirmed on 20 April 2021 that the COVID-19 adjusted right to work check process will only remain in place until 16 May 2021. Although employers will need to undertake fully compliant right to work checks from 17 May 2021, they will not have to carry out retrospective checks where the adjusted process has been used.

Text:

The Home Office guidance can be found here.

No retrospective checks required

The confirmation that retrospective checks will not be required will come as a relief to employers, and recognises the huge administrative task that would have been involved in doing this.

Employer reaction to the announcement

The ending of adjusted right to work process coincides with the planned implementation of step three of the Government’s roadmap for easing lockdown restrictions in England. However, many employees will continue to work either fully or predominantly from home beyond this date.

Many employers have expressed concern that the return to full compliance is premature and unworkable. We, along with other immigration practitioners, will be raising our clients’ concerns with the Home Office with a view to reaching a safer and less disruptive solution.

Tips for minimising adjusted checks and returning to fully compliant right to work checks when required

Whilst the appropriate arrangements will vary from business to business, we would suggest the following general approach for employers to ensure compliance whilst minimising the need for face-to-face right to work checks:

  • Determine an internal policy for conducting right to work checks on the assumption this will be required from 17 May 2021 and ensure all relevant recruitment, HR and any other staff responsible for carrying out right to work checks are made aware of this in good time
  • Use online right to work checks wherever possible (noting that the individual must be present at the time of the check, at least via live video link)
  • Put adequate resources in place to securely receive, review and return physical documents required for manual right to work checks, and consider conducting manual checks with the individual being present via live video link rather than face-to-face

If you require assistance with devising or reviewing your right to work check processes in response to adjusted checks ending or would like to raise any particular areas of concern for your business, please contact a member of our Immigration Team.

We will also be discussing right to work issues, in our webinar, ‘Right to work checks from 1 July 2021’. Register for the session here taking place on 24 June 2021.

Related Item(s): Immigration & Global Mobility

Author(s)/Speaker(s): Andrew Osborne, Li Xiang, Tom McEvoy,

Categories hong-kong

Lewis Silkin – Home Office announces end to COVID-19 adjusted right to work checks

The Home Office confirmed on 20 April 2021 that the COVID-19 adjusted right to work check process will only remain in place until 16 May 2021. Although employers will need to undertake fully compliant right to work checks from 17 May 2021, they will not have to carry out retrospective checks where the adjusted process has been used.

Text:

The Home Office guidance can be found here.

No retrospective checks required

The confirmation that retrospective checks will not be required will come as a relief to employers, and recognises the huge administrative task that would have been involved in doing this.

Practical tips for returning to fully compliant right to work checks

The ending of adjusted right to work process coincides with the planned implementation of step three of the Government’s roadmap for easing lockdown restrictions in England. However, many employees will continue to work either fully or predominantly from home beyond this date.

Whilst the appropriate arrangements will vary from business to business, we would suggest the following general approach for employers to ensure compliance whilst minimising the need for face-to-face right to work checks:

  • Determine an internal policy for conducting right to work checks from 17 May 2021 and ensure all relevant recruitment, HR and any other staff responsible for carrying out right to work checks are made aware of this in good time
  • Use online right to work checks wherever possible (noting that the individual must be present at the time of the check, at least via live video link)
  • Put adequate resources in place to securely receive, review and return physical documents required for manual right to work checks, and consider conducting manual checks with the individual being present via live video link rather than face-to-face

If you require assistance with devising or reviewing your right to work check processes in response to adjusted checks ending, please contact a member of our Immigration Team.

We will also be discussing right to work issues, in our webinar, ‘Right to work checks from 1 July 2021’. Register for the session here taking place on 24 June 2021.

Related Item(s): Immigration & Global Mobility

Author(s)/Speaker(s): Andrew Osborne, Li Xiang, Tom McEvoy,

Categories hong-kong

Lewis Silkin – MAC call for evidence on Intra-Company Transfer route

The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) is currently seeking stakeholders’ views on the operation and effectiveness of the Intra-Company Transfer (ICT) immigration route, as well as a potential expansion of the immigration options for overseas businesses setting up a presence in the UK.

Text:

The deadline for submitting responses to the MAC’s call for evidence is 15 June 2021. The MAC is due to report back to the government in October 2021.

Review of ICT routes

The current ICT routes replaced Tier 2 (Intra-Company Transfer) category in December 2021. The main alternative is the Skilled Worker route.

The main ICT route currently enables UK employers to transfer existing senior employees and specialist personnel who have been employed by a group business abroad for at least 12 months. High earners with a salary of £73,900 or higher do not need to meet the 12-month employment requirement.

The Intra-Company Graduate Trainee route is available to transfer up to 20 graduate trainees to the UK per financial year as part of structured graduate training programme. Graduate Trainees must have been employed by a group business abroad for at least three months.

The salary thresholds and skill requirements for the ICT route are higher than those of the Skilled Worker route, and currently the advantages to using it are limited to certain situations outlined in our earlier article.

The MAC has been asked to advise on the following:

  • Salary thresholds for entry to the ICT route;
  • What elements beyond base salary should contribute towards meeting the salary requirement;
  • Whether different arrangements should apply to high earners, as they do now;
  • The skills threshold for this route; and
  • The conditions of this route, particularly those that differ from the Skilled Worker route.

Expansion of immigration options for overseas businesses setting up in the UK

The MAC is also gathering evidence on an expansion of the government’s mobility offering that would allow overseas businesses to send a small team to the UK to set up a branch, subsidiary company or office in the UK. Currently employers are only permitted to send one person under the Representative of Overseas Business route. The government is also seeking to expand its mobility offering to include a route that would permit overseas businesses to send a team to the UK in connection to a high-value contract for the provision of products or services.

The MAC is considering:

  • Criteria for the eligibility of workers: such as skill and salary threshold; and
  • Criteria for eligible organisations: such as size of company, value of contract, or potential job creation.

Evidence requested from stakeholders

The MAC would like to receive evidence on:

  • Employers’ reasons for using (or not using) the ICT route in the past five years
  • Perceptions about the ease of use of the current ICT routes
  • Perceptions about the current salary thresholds for the ICT routes
  • Whether and what allowances should be counted to meet salary thresholds on the ICT routes
  • What skill threshold should apply to the ICT routes
  • Whether there should be reforms to the arrangements for ICT migrants to work for third party clients
  • Whether there should be reforms to the length of time that an applicant must have worked for the business abroad (and related exemptions)
  • Whether there should be reforms to the maximum amount of time a person can stay in the UK under the ICT route
  • What differences there should be for graduate trainees in comparison to the main ICT route
  • Whether the absence of an English language requirement for the ICT routes should be retained
  • What alternatives businesses would pursue if the ICT routes were not available
  • Whether the introduction of the Skilled Worker route makes the ICT route more or less attractive than previously
  • What the consequences might be of allowing businesses setting up in the UK to send a small team to do this, rather than only one individual
  • Any experience employers have of sending a small team to set up a business in any country
  • Perceptions on allowing workers from an overseas business with no UK presence to be seconded to the UK to work on high-value contracts
  • Any other changes stakeholders would like to see to the ICT route

If you have any queries about the call for evidence or require assistance in completing a response, please contact our Immigration Team.

 

Related Item(s): Immigration & Global Mobility

Author(s)/Speaker(s): Andrew Osborne, Ella Skinner,

Categories hong-kong

Lewis Silkin – MAC call for evidence on Intra-Company Transfer route

The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) is currently seeking stakeholders’ views on the operation and effectiveness of the Intra-Company Transfer (ICT) immigration route, as well as a potential expansion of the immigration options for overseas businesses setting up a presence in the UK.

Text:

The deadline for submitting responses to the MAC’s call for evidence is 15 June 2021. The MAC is due to report back to the government in October 2021.

Review of ICT routes

The current ICT routes replaced Tier 2 (Intra-Company Transfer) category in December 2021. The main alternative is the Skilled Worker route.

The main ICT route currently enables UK employers to transfer existing senior employees and specialist personnel who have been employed by a group business abroad for at least 12 months. High earners with a salary of £73,900 or higher do not need to meet the 12-month employment requirement.

The Intra-Company Graduate Trainee route is available to transfer up to 20 graduate trainees to the UK per financial year as part of structured graduate training programme. Graduate Trainees must have been employed by a group business abroad for at least three months.

The salary thresholds and skill requirements for the ICT route are higher than those of the Skilled Worker route, and currently the advantages to using it are limited to certain situations outlined in our earlier article.

The MAC has been asked to advise on the following:

  • Salary thresholds for entry to the ICT route;
  • What elements beyond base salary should contribute towards meeting the salary requirement;
  • Whether different arrangements should apply to high earners, as they do now;
  • The skills threshold for this route; and
  • The conditions of this route, particularly those that differ from the Skilled Worker route.

Expansion of immigration options for overseas businesses setting up in the UK

The MAC is also gathering evidence on an expansion of the government’s mobility offering that would allow overseas businesses to send a small team to the UK to set up a branch, subsidiary company or office in the UK. Currently employers are only permitted to send one person under the Representative of Overseas Business route. The government is also seeking to expand its mobility offering to include a route that would permit overseas businesses to send a team to the UK in connection to a high-value contract for the provision of products or services.

The MAC is considering:

  • Criteria for the eligibility of workers: such as skill and salary threshold; and
  • Criteria for eligible organisations: such as size of company, value of contract, or potential job creation.

Evidence requested from stakeholders

The MAC would like to receive evidence on:

  • Employers’ reasons for using (or not using) the ICT route in the past five years
  • Perceptions about the ease of use of the current ICT routes
  • Perceptions about the current salary thresholds for the ICT routes
  • Whether and what allowances should be counted to meet salary thresholds on the ICT routes
  • What skill threshold should apply to the ICT routes
  • Whether there should be reforms to the arrangements for ICT migrants to work for third party clients
  • Whether there should be reforms to the length of time that an applicant must have worked for the business abroad (and related exemptions)
  • Whether there should be reforms to the maximum amount of time a person can stay in the UK under the ICT route
  • What differences there should be for graduate trainees in comparison to the main ICT route
  • Whether the absence of an English language requirement for the ICT routes should be retained
  • What alternatives businesses would pursue if the ICT routes were not available
  • Whether the introduction of the Skilled Worker route makes the ICT route more or less attractive than previously
  • What the consequences might be of allowing businesses setting up in the UK to send a small team to do this, rather than only one individual
  • Any experience employers have of sending a small team to set up a business in any country
  • Perceptions on allowing workers from an overseas business with no UK presence to be seconded to the UK to work on high-value contracts
  • Any other changes stakeholders would like to see to the ICT route

If you have any queries about the call for evidence or require assistance in completing a response, please contact our Immigration Team.

 

Related Item(s): Immigration & Global Mobility

Author(s)/Speaker(s): Andrew Osborne, Ella Skinner,

Categories hong-kong

Lewis Silkin – Redundancy

This Inbrief looks at how employers can minimise the risk of legal claims when dismissing employees by reason of redundancy.

Text:

Introduction

This Inbrief looks at how employers can minimise the risk of legal claims when dismissing employees by reason of redundancy. The starting point is making sure that there is a genuine redundancy situation. The crucial thing then is to follow a reasonable procedure, including consulting the affected employees, applying a fair selection process and considering alternative employment. Finally, those dismissed should be given their correct redundancy pay. For information on the procedures to be followed in circumstances where the employer is proposing to make 20 or more employees at one establishment redundant within a period of 90 days, please see our Collective redundancies Inbrief.

The content includes:

  1. What is a genuine redundacy?
  2. The procedure to follow
  3. Who is entitled to a redundancy payment?
  4. Immigration issues

Main points

In order to avoid a successful claim for unfair dismissal arising out of a redundancy situation there must be:

  • a genuine redundancy situation
  • adequate warning and consultation of affected employees
  • a fair selection process
  • consideration of alternative employment
  • a fair procedure An employee must have two years’ service in order to claim unfair dismissal.

What is a genuine redundancy?

There is a rather technical legal definition of redundancy. In essence, a redundancy situation exists where:

  • the business as a whole is closing down 
  • the particular part of the business in which the employee works is closing down
  • the business is closing down in a particular location; or
  • the business needs fewer employees with the redundant employee’s skills

The procedure to follow

Consultation

Individual consultation is crucial to a fair redundancy. It should be a means by which information is gathered to assist an employer in making its decision and give employees the opportunity to ask questions and have their say. It is essential that the consultation meetings occur before the final dismissal decisions have been taken. It is also important that during consultation the employer does not assert or imply that the employee will definitely be made redundant.

When arranging a consultation meeting, an employer should give the employee adequate time and information to prepare properly for it. Whilst there is no obligation to allow an employee to be accompanied to consultation meetings, the employer may choose to give the employee that option. 

Issues to be discussed at individual consultation meetings include:

  • the reason for the redundancy
  • an explanation of the pool for selection
  • the selection criteria
  • why the individual has been provisionally selected for redundancy according to the criteria (including the scores given)
  • whether any factual matters relied upon are accurate
  • the timescale
  • the financial package
  • available vacancies, including details of the nature of the job, the location and terms and conditions
  • details of any other support available, e.g. outplacement services
  • other suggestions to avoid the employee’s redundancy

Consultation involves a two-way discussion between the employer and the employee, potentially over a number of weeks.

All employees who are at risk of being made redundant must be consulted. Employers should therefore ensure that they do not forget to consult employees who are on maternity leave, on long-term sick leave or on secondment, for example.

The selection pool

Before applying any selection criteria, it is important to identify the correct ‘pool’ of employees to whom the criteria are to be applied. Employers have some flexibility in defining the pool and it will be difficult for an employee to challenge an employer’s choice of pool where the employer has genuinely applied its mind to the issue. Once a provisional view of the appropriate pool has been taken, it is useful to check the following:

  • Is there a procedure for identifying the pool which has been agreed by the union or employee representatives? If so, this should normally be followed
  • Are there other groups of employees doing similar work to the employees within the provisional pool? If so, it is likely that these employees should also be included in the pool unless there are good reasons not to include them
  • Are there other employees working at different sites but doing similar work? Just because a particular site is being closed it does not mean that the pool should necessarily be drawn from the employees working at only that site
  • Are there employees whose jobs are interchangeable with any of those in the pool? If so, again, it may be appropriate to include them unless there is a good reason not to

Fair selection criteria

The selection criteria should, as far as possible, be objective. Some care needs to be taken so as not to fall foul of discrimination legislation when applying the criteria. For example, although selection on the basis of attendance is fair on the face of it and the facts are objectively verifiable, employers should check the reasons for absence to ensure that this criterion does not put women or disabled employees at a particular disadvantage. Absences for pregnancy related illnesses, maternity or other family friendly leave as well as absences related to an employee’s disability should therefore be discounted.

Similarly, although ‘Last In First Out’ has been used by employers in the past, it runs the risk of falling foul of the age discrimination legislation as younger employees are more likely to be selected for redundancy.

In practice, most employers use a matrix of criteria which takes account of a range of issues such as:

  • relevant skills and knowledge
  • relevant experience
  • relevant qualifications or training
  • disciplinary record
  • attendance record 
  • communication skills (verbal/written)
  • time management/productivity

Criteria should always be appropriate in the circumstances. There should be a business justification for the use of each criterion. Employers should be cautious about using subjective criteria such as ‘attitude’ or ‘team player’.

Even if the selection criteria are reasonable in themselves, they must be applied in a reasonable manner. For example, employers should not concentrate on performance which may have been poor for a short period, whilst ignoring previous sustained good performance.

Suitable alternative employment

An employee who is selected for redundancy should be offered any available vacancy that he/ she could fill, even if it is at a lower salary or at a lower status than the post from which the employee is being made redundant. Some employees would rather be working at a lower salary than be unemployed and an Employment Tribunal may criticise an employer who fails to at least offer an employee that possibility.

If an employee has been given notice of termination by reason of redundancy the employer has a duty to search for suitable alternative employment until the end of the affected employee’s notice period.

Any offer of alternative employment must be made before the end of the employment under the previous contract. It must also take effect either immediately on the ending of the employment under the previous contract or after an interval of not more than four weeks.

If the terms and conditions of the new or renewed contract of employment differ in any way from the corresponding provisions of the previous contract, there is a statutory four week trial period for the employee to decide whether the alternative employment is suitable. If the employee terminates the contract during the statutory trial period, he/she is treated as having been dismissed on the date at which his original contract ended. If the termination is unreasonable, the employee will not be entitled to any redundancy payment. 

Where an employee’s role is made redundant during maternity, adoption or shared parental leave and a return to the old job is not possible, the employer must offer a suitable vacancy if there is one. An employee on maternity, adoption or shared parental leave has priority over other employees who may be candidates for the alternative role. If the employee is not given priority, the dismissal will be automatically unfair. 

A fair procedure

A fair procedure must be followed before individual employees are dismissed. What is fair will depend on the circumstances of each case. A fair procedure should involve all the considerations mentioned above as well as clear communication with the potentially affected employee(s), through one-to-one meetings and in writing. In terms of procedural steps, a fair procedure is likely to involve:

  • An initial meeting with the potentially affected employee(s) explaining the reasons for the potential redundancy and the selection process that the employer will follow. This should be confirmed in writing.
  • Once the selection criteria have been applied, a letter to the provisionally selected employee(s) setting out the reasons for redundancy and their selection and inviting them to a consultation meeting. The employee(s) will need to be given information about their selection assessment.
  • A first individual consultation meeting to discuss the employee’s provisional selection for redundancy, alternatives to redundancy, and proposed redundancy pay terms.
  • Discussions in relation to alternative vacancies and any application procedure.

A final individual consultation meeting confirming selection for redundancy and discussing redundancy pay terms. This should be confirmed in writing.

  • The employer should allow an employee to appeal against the decision to make them redundant.

As there can be no guarantee as to what will be considered to be fair in a particular case, additional or alternative steps may be necessary depending on the circumstances.

Who is entitled to a redundancy payment?

Only employees with two or more years’ continuous service are entitled to receive a redundancy payment. A redundant employee is entitled to a payment no less than the statutory redundancy payment which is calculated according to age and length of service. The payment is calculated as follows:

  • One and a half week’s pay for each year of employment which consists wholly of weeks in which the employee was not below the age of 41
  • One week’s pay for each such year of employment which consists wholly of weeks in which the employee was not below the age of 22; and
  • Half a week’s pay for each such year of employment not falling within either of the preceding sub-paragraphs

The maximum number of service years to be taken into account is 20 and the maximum amount of a week’s pay is £544 as of 6 April 2021. Applying the above calculation, the maximum redundancy payment is £16,320 as of 6 April 2021.

In practice, many employers choose to make ‘enhanced’ redundancy payments. If such payments are calculated using the statutory redundancy payment formula with permitted uplifts they will not be discriminatory on grounds of age. Other schemes that include age or length of service criteria as factors in calculating a redundancy payment may need to be objectively justified.

An employee who is dismissed by reason of redundancy loses the right to a redundancy payment if he or she unreasonably refuses an offer of suitable employment.

Whilst an offer of alternative employment may be suitable on objective rounds, the reasonableness of the employee’s refusal can be determined on subjective grounds. The personal circumstances of the particular employee should therefore be taken into account when considering the question of whether or not an employee has unreasonably refused a suitable offer of alternative employment. 

Immigration issues

When employers are considering redundancies (or changes such as lay-offs or salary reductions), they should assess whether this has any effect on the immigration status of any of the employees affected. Any of them who holds a Tier 2 visa will have reporting requirements that are likely to be triggered, which may then have knock-on implications for whether they can keep their visa or not. Lewis Silkin’s excellent immigration team can assist you in navigating this part of the process. 

Type: Inbrief

Related Item(s): Employment, Employment

Author(s)/Speaker(s): Steven Lorber,

Attachment: Redundancy Apr 2021

Categories hong-kong

Lewis Silkin – Important amendments to guidance on document keeping for sponsor licence holders

On 16 March 2021 the Home Office made important clarifications to the documentation that sponsors of workers must keep regarding their recruitment activity. The changes are helpful and should not be onerous for sponsors to comply with, however there may be actions that some employers will need to take to ensure compliance.

Text:

The changes are set out in Appendix D to the sponsor guidance, which covers document keeping requirements for sponsors.

Background to the update

Substantial reforms to the immigration arrangements for sponsored workers were brought into effect on 1 December 2020, including the launch of the Skilled Worker route. This route, unlike its predecessor Tier 2 (General), does not include a formal resident labour market testing requirement.

An initial update to Appendix D, which was published on 1 December 2020, stated that sponsors only needed to retain evidence of recruitment activity where the sponsor had told the Home Office that resident labour market testing had been carried out.

This initial wording did not adequately reflect the Home Office’s intention to ensure it was still able to assess whether a vacancy occupied by a sponsored worker was a genuine vacancy, even where formal resident labour market testing was not required. The Home Office therefore revised Appendix D on 18 December 2020, however, in doing so, reintroduced some very prescriptive document keeping requirements that were similar to what had previously been in place for formal resident labour market testing.

Subsequent conversations and correspondence between the Home Office and immigration practitioners confirmed that it was not the Home Office’s intention to reimplement formal resident labour market testing requirements in all but name, and that clarifying guidance would be forthcoming. This was eventually published on 16 March 2021.

Requirements in the new guidance

Part 2 of Appendix D, which covers the evidence that sponsors must keep of recruitment activity has now been split into two sections.

Section A covers the situation where a formal resident labour market test or similar was, or is, required (ie where it was required under the pre-1 December 2020 routes, plus T2 Sportsperson, T5 Religious Worker, T5 Creative and T5 Sporting). It broadly replicates Appendix D as it was before 1 December 2020.

Section B covers the situation where no formal resident labour market testing is required (ie for Skilled Worker and all other sponsored workers from 1 December 2020 aside from T2 Sportsperson, T5 Religious Worker, T5 Creative and T5 Sporting).

Section B confirms that if the job was advertised, evidence of recruitment activity must be retained, including:

  • Details of adverts, ie:
  • Screenshot, printout or photocopy of any adverts placed (with no minimum number of adverts or prescribed method of advertising, however retaining evidence of all relevant adverts is recommended)
  • Information on where the job was advertised, eg website address, and for how long
  • A record of the number of people who applied for the job, and the number of people shortlisted for interview or other stages of the recruitment process
  • At least one item of evidence or information which shows the process the sponsor used to identify the most suitable candidate (noting that there is no need to retain any personal data for unsuccessful candidates):
  • Copy or summary of interview notes for the successful candidate
  • List of common interview questions used for all candidates as part of the selection process
  • Brief notes on why the successful candidate was selected and why other candidates were rejected
  • Information about any scoring or grading process used to identify the successful candidate
  • Any other relevant information or evidence

If the job was not advertised, the sponsor must, if asked, be able to explain (and if practicable provide evidence of) how the sponsored worker was identified as being suitable. Non-exhaustive examples given include:

  • Milk-round evidence (ie letters from each university as per pre-Skilled Worker requirements)
  • The worker was already working legally for the sponsor in another immigration route and their previous performance demonstrated they were suitable
  • The worker submitted a speculative application and the sponsor was satisfied (eg through interview, references and/or qualifications) that they had the necessary skills and experience for the job

We would suggest that a short note is included on the sponsored worker’s HR file to provide the relevant explanation as appropriate.

Practical steps to take now

Sponsors should ensure that the updated guidance is complied with, including that it is met for all workers whose immigration applications were made on or after 1 December 2020. The guidance appears to be retrospective, so our view is that sponsors do not have to meet the more onerous requirements that were set out in the 18 December 2020 guidance.

Sponsors should be aware however that the definition of ‘worker’ used in the guidance includes workers under the Intra-company routes, so should be prepared to justify the suitability of intra-company transferees whose applications were made on or after 1 December 2020.

If you have any queries on the updated guidance changes and how to comply, please contact a member of our Immigration Team.

Related Item(s): Immigration & Global Mobility

Author(s)/Speaker(s): Andrew Osborne, Stephen OFlaherty, Naomi Hanrahan-Soar, Joanna Hunt,

Categories hong-kong

Lewis Silkin – Guidance on document-keeping for sponsor licence holders amended

2021年3月、内務省 (Home Office) は採用活動に関して労働者のスポンサーが保管すべき文書に関する重要な説明を発表しました。この変更は有用なものであり、順守は特に煩わしいものではありません。ただし、確実に順守するためにアクションを取る必要のある雇用者もいます。

Text:

変更はスポンサー向けガイダンスの付録Dに記載されており、スポンサーに対する文書管理要件が取り上げられています。

更新の背景

熟練労働者のルートの立ち上げを含め、スポンサー付き労働者向けの移民手続きが大幅に改定され2020121日に施行されました。それまでのティア2(一般)とは異なり、このルートには正式な居住者労働市場テストの要件としないことを確定しました。

2020121日に付録Dの最初の変更が発表され、この中ではスポンサーから内務省に居住者労働市場テストの実施を報告した場合の採用活動について、その証拠を維持する必要性だけが言及されていました。

この当初の表現には内務省の意図が適切に反映されていませんでした。正式な居住者労働市場テストが要件ではない場合でも、スポンサー付き労働者が雇用された空席が純粋な空席であったかどうかについて評価できる態勢を留めるということが内務省の意図でした。よって内務省は20201218日に付録Dを改訂しましたが、その改訂の中で、正式な居住者労働市場テストに以前含まれていたものと同様の非常に規範的な文書管理要件を再導入しました。

内務省と移民担当の専門家の間で交わされたその後の会話ややり取りによって、内務省の意図は正式な居住者労働市場テストの要件を実質的に再導入することではないこと、より説明的なガイダンスが今後出てくることが確認されました。このガイダンスが最終的に2021316日に発表されました。

新たなガイダンスの要件

スポンサーが採用活動に関して維持すべき証拠について取り上げた付録Dの第2部は2つのセクションに分けられました。

セクションAは正式な居住者労働市場テストまたは同様のものが要件とされていた、または要件であるという状況(2020121日前のルートの下で要件とされていた状況と、T2スポーツ選手、T5宗教従事者、T5クリエイティブ、T5スポーツ)について取り上げています。おおむね、2020121日前の付録Dを踏襲しています。

セクションBは正式な居住者労働市場テストが不要な状況(2020121日以降の熟練労働者およびその他スポンサー付き労働者。T2スポーツ選手、T5宗教従事者、T5クリエイティブ、T5スポーツを除く)を取り上げています。

セクションBでは、求人を広告した場合、採用活動の証拠維持を確認しています。維持すべき証拠には次のものが含まれます。

  • 広告の詳細、具体的には:
    • 出稿した広告のスクリーンショット、印刷、コピー。(広告の最低限の数や広告手法についての指示はありませんが、該当する全ての広告の証拠を維持することをお勧めします。)
    • 求人広告の掲載場所(ウェブサイトのアドレスなど)およびその期間。
  • 仕事に応募してきた人数、面接およびその他の採用プロセスの段階に招待された人数の記録。
  • 最適な候補者の特定のためにスポンサーが利用したプロセスを示す証拠または情報を少なくとも1件(採用されなかった候補者の個人データを保管する必要はない点にご留意ください):
    • 採用された候補者の面談メモの写しまたは要約
    • 選定プロセスの一環として全候補者に使った面接時の共通の質問一覧
    • 採用された候補者が選ばれた理由と他の候補者が却下された理由に関する短いメモ
    • 採用された候補者を特定するために使われた得点付けや評価付けプロセスに関する情報
    • その他関連する情報や証拠

 

求人広告を出さなかった場合、スポンサーは求められた場合には、スポンサー付き労働者が適切であるとどのように特定したのかについて説明(および可能であれば証拠を提供)できる必要があります。例示列挙すると次の通りです。

  • 大学での会社説明会の証拠(熟練労働者の事前要件に関する各大学からの手紙)。
  • その労働者が既に他の移民ルートでスポンサーにおいて合法的に勤務しており、以前の業績によって適任であることが示されている。
  • その労働者が、募集を行っていない職種に応募し、スポンサーとしてはその仕事に対する必要なスキルや経験を有していると判断した(面接、紹介および/または資格などから)。

スポンサー付き労働者の人事ファイルに短いメモを含め、適宜、適切な説明ができるようにしておくことをお勧めします。

今講じる実際的なステップ

スポンサーは更新されたガイダンスを確実に順守すべきです。2020121日以降に移民申請をした全労働者に対して順守を図ってください。ガイダンスは過去にさかのぼるもののようですので、20201218日のガイダンスで設定された一段と煩雑な要件には従う必要はないというのが当方の見解です。

ガイダンス改訂版の変更点や順守に関するご質問は、移民チームのメンバーまでお問い合わせください。

 

Related Item(s): Immigration & Global Mobility

Author(s)/Speaker(s): Li Xiang,

Categories hong-kong

Lewis Silkin – Important amendments to guidance on document keeping for sponsor licence holders

On 16 March 2021 the Home Office made important clarifications to the documentation that sponsors of workers must keep regarding their recruitment activity. The changes are helpful and should not be onerous for sponsors to comply with, however there may be actions that some employers will need to take to ensure compliance.

Text:

The changes are set out in Appendix D to the sponsor guidance, which covers document keeping requirements for sponsors.

Background to the update

Substantial reforms to the immigration arrangements for sponsored workers were brought into effect on 1 December 2020, including the launch of the Skilled Worker route. This route, unlike its predecessor Tier 2 (General), does not include a formal resident labour market testing requirement.

An initial update to Appendix D, which was published on 1 December 2020, stated that sponsors only needed to retain evidence of recruitment activity where the sponsor had told the Home Office that resident labour market testing had been carried out.

This initial wording did not adequately reflect the Home Office’s intention to ensure it was still able to assess whether a vacancy occupied by a sponsored worker was a genuine vacancy, even where formal resident labour market testing was not required. The Home Office therefore revised Appendix D on 18 December 2020, however, in doing so, reintroduced some very prescriptive document keeping requirements that were similar to what had previously been in place for formal resident labour market testing.

Subsequent conversations and correspondence between the Home Office and immigration practitioners confirmed that it was not the Home Office’s intention to reimplement formal resident labour market testing requirements in all but name, and that clarifying guidance would be forthcoming. This was eventually published on 16 March 2021.

Requirements in the new guidance

Part 2 of Appendix D, which covers the evidence that sponsors must keep of recruitment activity has now been split into two sections.

Section A covers the situation where a formal resident labour market test or similar was, or is, required (ie where it was required under the pre-1 December 2020 routes, plus T2 Sportsperson, T5 Religious Worker, T5 Creative and T5 Sporting). It broadly replicates Appendix D as it was before 1 December 2020.

Section B covers the situation where no formal resident labour market testing is required (ie for Skilled Worker and all other sponsored workers from 1 December 2020 aside from T2 Sportsperson, T5 Religious Worker, T5 Creative and T5 Sporting).

Section B confirms that if the job was advertised, evidence of recruitment activity must be retained, including:

  • Details of adverts, ie:
  • Screenshot, printout or photocopy of any adverts placed (with no minimum number of adverts or prescribed method of advertising, however retaining evidence of all relevant adverts is recommended)
  • Information on where the job was advertised, eg website address, and for how long
  • A record of the number of people who applied for the job, and the number of people shortlisted for interview or other stages of the recruitment process
  • At least one item of evidence or information which shows the process the sponsor used to identify the most suitable candidate (noting that there is no need to retain any personal data for unsuccessful candidates):
  • Copy or summary of interview notes for the successful candidate
  • List of common interview questions used for all candidates as part of the selection process
  • Brief notes on why the successful candidate was selected and why other candidates were rejected
  • Information about any scoring or grading process used to identify the successful candidate
  • Any other relevant information or evidence

If the job was not advertised, the sponsor must, if asked, be able to explain (and if practicable provide evidence of) how the sponsored worker was identified as being suitable. Non-exhaustive examples given include:

  • Milk-round evidence (ie letters from each university as per pre-Skilled Worker requirements)
  • The worker was already working legally for the sponsor in another immigration route and their previous performance demonstrated they were suitable
  • The worker submitted a speculative application and the sponsor was satisfied (eg through interview, references and/or qualifications) that they had the necessary skills and experience for the job

We would suggest that a short note is included on the sponsored worker’s HR file to provide the relevant explanation as appropriate.

Practical steps to take now

Sponsors should ensure that the updated guidance is complied with, including that it is met for all workers whose immigration applications were made on or after 1 December 2020. The guidance appears to be retrospective, so our view is that sponsors do not have to meet the more onerous requirements that were set out in the 18 December 2020 guidance.

Sponsors should be aware however that the definition of ‘worker’ used in the guidance includes workers under the Intra-company routes, so should be prepared to justify the suitability of intra-company transferees whose applications were made on or after 1 December 2020.

If you have any queries on the updated guidance changes and how to comply, please contact a member of our Immigration Team.

Related Item(s): Immigration & Global Mobility

Author(s)/Speaker(s): Andrew Osborne, Stephen OFlaherty, Naomi Hanrahan-Soar, Joanna Hunt,

Categories hong-kong

Lewis Silkin – Coronavirus FAQs for employers on working from home

These FAQs look at the considerations for employers whose staff are working from home during the pandemic.

Text:

On 22 February, the Prime Minister announced a new four step plan to ease England’s lockdown (with Devolved Administrations setting out separate plans for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). This COVID-19 Response, the government’s “roadmap out of lockdown”, will see restrictions start to lift against a series of indicative dates, with a minimum of five weeks between each step. New “steps” regulations came into effect on 29 March to implement the roadmap.

The “steps” regulations lift the lockdown restrictions on leaving home to go to the office if your job can be done from home. However, office workers are advised to carry on working from home for the time being if possible.

It is clear that working from home will continue to be the new normal for most office-based staff for some months to come.  These FAQs look at the various considerations that employers need to bear in mind in relation to employees working from home.

Should every office-based employee in England work from home?

With effect from 29 March, it is no longer be a criminal offence to leave home in order to go to the office if your job can be done from home. However, the latest guidance says that office workers should continue to work from home if they can, until at least step 4 of the roadmap (pencilled in for 21 June) unless home working is not appropriate because of mental or physical health difficulties, or a particularly challenging home working environment.

Although the stay at home order was lifted on 29 March, “gatherings” will remain heavily restricted. For more details, see Reopening offices – what do the new regulations say?

In practice, this means that, with effect from 29 March, solitary and independent working at the office is a matter of government guidance rather than legal requirement. However, in-person meetings at the office will be subject to severe legal restrictions. Employers may wish to open up their offices in a limited way for employees who are struggling with homeworking because of the impact on their mental or physical health or because their working environment at home is unsuitable. However, other employees should continue working from home.

For more details see our article on going back to the office – the latest guidance.

Health and safety

Do employers have health and safety duties to homeworkers?

Yes. Employers owe a duty to take steps that are reasonably necessary to ensure the health, safety and welfare of all their employees, and provide and maintain a safe system of work – including for employees working from home.

The UK’s workplace health and safety regulator, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), has updated its homeworking guidance to take account of working arrangements during the  Covid-19 pandemic.

Acas has also published guidance on working from home which can be accessed here.

Do employers need to carry out a risk assessment for those working from home?

The short answer is yes.  However, the exact nature of the assessment will depend on the type of work which is being undertaken at home.

Under the Health and Safety Act 1974 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, employers have a general duty to conduct a risk assessment of all the work activities carried out by their employees. This involves identifying any hazards and assessing associated risks.  Employers must take measures to remove any hazards or, where this is not reasonably practicable, to minimise the associated risks. There are also specific obligations in relation to the use of display screen equipment (see below).

The duty of care which employers owe to employees also apply to those working from home. In these exceptionally challenging times, however, employers are unlikely to be required to approach things in the usual way – not least, because it isn’t currently possible for them to visit employees’ homes. Guidance issued by the HSE on regulating occupational health during the coronavirus outbreak says that it will continue to take a flexible and proportionate account of the risks and challenges arising from the pandemic.

At the very least, employers ought to undertake a basic homeworking risk assessment and consider whether there are any risks which arise from the type of work which is being undertaken from home, whether it can be done safely and whether any measures ought to be put in place to protect employees from any risks identified.  For employees whose work is largely on computers and the telephone the risks are likely to include feelings of isolation, a lack of supervision, physical issues arising from prolonged use of display screen equipment and working long hours and/or inadequate breaks from work.  Employers should go on to consider whether they can implement any measures to minimise the impact of these risks. For example:

  • Check that each employee feels the work they are being asked to do at home can be done safely.
  • Ensure adequate supervision of junior or less experienced staff members, including new joiners.
  • Keep in touch with lone workers, including those working from home, and ensure regular contact to make sure they are healthy and safe. There will always be greater risks for lone workers with no direct supervision, or anyone to help them if things go wrong. This is especially important for new joiners who may struggle to feel integrated.
  • Establish clear expectations on both sides in relation to communications, working hours, availability and so on.
  • Ensure employees have avenues to report mental wellbeing issues and schedule regular check-ins with homeworkers. In our survey, over a quarter (27%) of employers said that they had seen a significant increase in mental health problems for employees who have been able to work from home. We have produced a helpful guide to wellbeing while working from home and Acas has produced guidance on spotting and handling mental health in the context of homeworking and furlough.

Are there particular obligations where employees are using laptops and computers at home?

The Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 contain specific obligations in relation to display screen equipment (DSE). Employers must:

  • Identify risks for individuals who regularly use DSE, including laptops used for prolonged periods, as a significant part of their usual work. (HSE guidance suggests this means daily usage for continuous periods of an hour or more.)
  • Reduce the risks identified to the lowest extent reasonably practicable.
  • Provide adequate training and information to employees.

HSE guidance on protecting homeworkers states that there is no increased risk from DSE for those working from home temporarily, so employers are not expected to undertake a full home workstation assessment. Nonetheless, it would be advisable to provide guidance and information on health and safety risks arising from homeworking and to ask employees to assess risk in general terms (including in relation to DSE related problems). The HSE provides a useful checklist which can be given to the employee. Employers should keep the situation under review, since the adverse effects of homeworking with a sub-optimal set up will increase the longer the period of homeworking continues.

For employees working from home on a long-term basis, the risks of using DSE must be controlled by them doing a workplace assessment at home. It remains to be seen whether, as homeworking continues on a widespread basis, the HSE’s position will move towards requiring full workstation assessments for all employees working from home for Covid-related reasons. Given that many employees will have been working at home for over 6 months, it is prudent to provide guidance and support to employees so that they can undertake a workstation assessment. Certainly, those employers moving to a model of permanent remote working for the long-term, regardless of the pandemic, will need to carry out a suitable risk assessment.

What health and safety duties do companies (or “end-users”) have towards temporary or agency workers carrying out work for them at home?

The situation has become more complex in relation to temporary or agency workers during the pandemic, where they are working under the control of the end-user but not at the end-user’s premises. In short, agency workers should be provided with the same level of health and safety protection as employees.

Broadly speaking, the end-user has responsibility for ensuring the health and safety of the agency worker while the individual is working under their control, while the intermediary (e.g. the agency) has the duty to ensure that the end-user has taken steps to ensure the health and safety of the workers. 

Where there are multiple intermediaries (e.g. agencies or umbrella companies) involved in an engagement, or the possibility of multiple workplaces, the parties should agree who will take responsibility for which actions. End-users are encouraged to engage in active communication with all parties to ensure no-one’s health and safety is compromised.

Provision of equipment and expenses

Do employers need to provide homeworkers with equipment to use at home?

There is no general legal obligation on employers to provide the equipment necessary for homeworking.

In guidance issued during the first lockdown, the government encouraged employers to take every step possible to facilitate their employees working from home, including providing suitable IT and equipment to enable remote working. Some employers have developed systems to allow employees to take equipment from the office to satisfy this shorter-term need. Some employers are providing a (generally fixed sum) budget to employees to buy necessary work equipment for working at home, so long as receipts are provided.

Employers should provide equipment or flexibility for employees who are identified as being at risk. In circumstances where equipment is specifically needed to address health and safety concerns, employers are liable to fund the cost of that equipment (and possibly have a role in selecting it).

Disabled employees may be entitled to auxiliary aids as a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2020. If such an aid is reasonably needed, the employer needs to make sure it is provided – at its expense – to the individual when working from home.

Employers and employees should review their respective insurance policies to ensure work equipment used at home is covered.

There is no income tax or NICs charge where an employer provides office equipment for employees working from home under a formal homeworking arrangement if certain conditions are satisfied, including that the property remains the employers and that there is no significant private use of the equipment. 

HMRC has updated its tax rules for employers who cover the expense of providing or reimbursing the cost of homeworking equipment for employers working at home due to coronavirus. Detailed guidance can be found here.

Who is responsible for paying any additional homeworking expenses?

Employees will be using their own heating, lighting, broadband and sometime phone lines while working from home but it will be challenging to quantify the amount used for work purposes. Employers are not legally required to reimburse employees for such costs, but they may find themselves under pressure to allow for employees to reclaim some of these expenses. Employers that decide to meet (a proportion of) these costs should review expenses policies to cover this.

If an employer decides to reimburse employees for the additional costs which the employee incurs while working at home under a formal working arrangement, the employer may pay up to £6 per week (£4 per week prior to 6 April 2020) free of income tax and NICs without the need to see receipts or records of expenditure.  If the employer decides to pay more than the £6 per week it will need to either: (i) show that it is reimbursing the actual costs incurred by the employee; or (ii) ensure that the excess above £6 per week is subject to income tax and NICs. The exemption is only available for additional costs and, for example, would not include internet/broadband charges which the employee was paying for prior to working from home under a formal arrangement.

Is there any tax relief available to employees in relation to office equipment and additional expenses?

Some assistance from HMRC is available in respect of both equipment and expenses. HMRC guidance states that payment or reimbursement to employees of up to £6 a week is non-taxable for expenses like electricity, heating or broadband incurred by an employer when an employee is working from home. Further guidance can be found here.

Employees can also claim tax relief if they are paying for these expenses, although they should not claim where their employer is covering the relevant expenses – see here.

Data protection and confidentiality

How should we manage the increased risk to data protection and confidentiality created by homeworking?

Information security and confidentiality are more difficult to manage where employees are hosting calls and meetings at home with others in earshot, or without the usual office systems in place for securing devices and documents. However, the normal duties to protect employer and client confidential information apply even when employees are working from home.

Employers should set out employees’ responsibilities in their homeworking policy (see below) and ensure that employees have adequate means of protecting information. For example, employers should be satisfied of the security of devices and software employees are using (e.g. the security levels of video-calling software and services). Care should be taken in choosing a secure platform that complies with your security requirements.

The Information Commissioner’s Office has produced guidance on the data protection aspects of working from home.

Employees work from home – can we monitor them?

One of the issues which was traditionally raised by employers about homeworking was how best to monitor productivity or quality of output and enable effective supervision. Some employers, out of concern that employees are not managing to “switch off”, might also wish to know what hours employees are working.

Even when employees are working from home, employers still need to comply with duties to ensure rest breaks and other working time obligations. Some employers have adopted technology such as “lone worker apps” through which employees check-in on the app at the beginning of the day and check out at the end of each day.

Employers can monitor employees’ work activities, but the level of monitoring needs to be proportionate and reasonable – discussed further below.

What does an employer need to take into account when considering monitoring?

There is no statutory right to privacy in the UK but this does not mean that an employer has unrestricted monitoring rights. Inappropriate and disproportionate monitoring could lead to claims involving the employees’ right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998). Employees also have data protection rights and can potentially claim that excessive monitoring amounts to a breach of the duty of mutual trust and confidence implied into all employment contracts – this may give qualifying employees a claim for unfair constructive dismissal.

In relation to data protection, the Information Commissioner’s Office’s employment practices code contains good practice guidance for employers in this area. In summary, employers should:

  • Complete a privacy impact assessment setting out the purposes of the monitoring, the adverse impact on data subjects, the mitigation and its justification.
  • Inform employees of the monitoring that is being undertaken, and the reasons why it has been adopted.
  • Limit the number of people who have access to the software and ensure that they are properly trained in confidentiality and data security.
  • Not use covert monitoring except in the most extreme circumstances (e.g. where criminal activity or similar is suspected).

Employers will need to weigh the perceived benefits to the business of monitoring, with the potential impact on morale, employee relations and mental health, which may ultimately lead to a deterioration in productivity. For a more in-depth discussion of these issues, please see our article.

Amending employment documentation

Should we amend existing employee’s contracts to reflect homeworking status?

Until the pandemic, homeworking was generally considered to be a non-standard, flexible working arrangement, where the “default” work location was the employer’s premises. Of course, employees have been working from home during the pandemic out of necessity rather than by choice, and the formalised flexible working request regime has to some extent fallen by the wayside (at least temporarily).

Employers may, however, wish to think about whether home working (or other flexible) arrangements need to be formalised in certain cases. Full or partial homeworking may have become a preference for many employees and many employers are considering reducing the office footprint in the longer-term. Even in July our employer surveyshowed that employers were already having to manage requests for permanent change. To claim the tax and NICs exemptions and reliefs there needs to be a formal home working arrangement in place between the employer and employee under which the employee must work at home regularly, so it is good to record this in writing.

Where contracts are amended to reflect the employee’s home as the place of work, employers will need to retain some flexibility to deal with some of the practicalities. For example, requiring employees to attend the office (for training, appraisals or disciplinary issues) and dealing with how expenses for travel to and from the office should be met. If an employee moves house, this may mean higher travel expense claims or a practical barrier to attending work at the office so employers could consider placing limits on how far an employee can move from a particular location. Employers may also want to retain the flexibility to alter the arrangement temporarily and consider making agreement to homeworking conditional on certain conditions being met, such as satisfactory performance being maintained.

While the uncertainty continues, employers may decide to keep homeworking under review until a definitive return to the office is possible. If so, you should continue to make clear that homeworking is, for the moment, a response to an exceptional situation, and that once a more comprehensive return to the office is anticipated, employees may make flexible working requests if they wish to work from home on a more permanent basis. These can be considered on a case-by case-basis. For more on this topic, please see our article.

Some employers have received requests from employees asking if they can work from “home” for an extended period overseas. Employers need to consider a variety of issues (including tax, social security, immigration and employment implications) before agreeing to any such request where “home” is not the UK. You can find out more on these issues in our article here.

What is the position for new starters who begin employment as homeworkers?

While recruitment activity has slowed down in many businesses, it has not stopped completely. Employers may wish to consider whether new recruits should be employed on a “working from home” basis from the outset, rather than stating a work location in the contract which they will not attend for some time to come.

Location clauses included in contracts can be drafted to state that the work should be performed from home initially, with a move to the office once it is safe and appropriate to do so. Additional obligations could also be included in contracts for new starters regarding access to an internet connection and other communication methods. Employers may also need to provide equipment (e.g. laptop, mobile phone) to individuals who would not normally be provided with these in their job role.

Should we amend existing policies or handbooks?

Many employers are currently reviewing how existing sickness, data and IT, disciplinary and grievance and benefit policies are impacted by a shift to homeworking.

Regarding sickness and absence policies, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) Regulations 2020 came into force on 28 September 2020. These make it a criminal offence, where an employer is aware that a worker is required to self-isolate, to allow the employee to attend work. In view of the range of circumstances in which employees may be absent from work due to the pandemic, it would be prudent to amend policies to allow for these potential temporary homeworking and Covid-related absences.

Regarding data and IT, it would be sensible to address data and information security issues related to working remotely, together with any need to address monitoring or other new ways in which personal data is being processed due to use of remote-working software.

Regarding disciplinary and grievance policies, employees working from home may no longer be able to attend in-person meetings for disciplinary and grievance procedures and the normal timelines for dealing with issues may need to be altered accordingly. Policies should be updated to ensure a fair procedure for both office workers and homeworkers.

As mentioned above, many employers are either updating or implementing homeworking policies, which draw together many of the areas mentioned above into a single document.

Employee benefits

How could homeworking impact employee benefits?

Some benefits have been used by employees in ways that are specific to their office location and may need to be reconsidered.

Homeworkers are unlikely to be using their commuter season tickets, which may have been purchased via an employer loan, and in many cases employees will already have claimed refunds where possible depending on the provider. Loan arrangements should be discussed and reviewed with the employee directly.

Other benefits may be specific to an office location – for example, subsidised or on-site childcare, gym membership, food. There may be alternative ways of helping employees in the longer term while they work from home, such as supporting them to access their tax-free childcare entitlement, providing occasional food vouchers or reimbursing the cost of attendance at local fitness classes as opposed to a city-centre gym. The provision of such alternative benefits may result in an income tax and/or NICs liability so employer would need to bear this in mind and seek appropriate advice.

Diversity and inclusion

How do we ensure that homeworking doesn’t disadvantage certain groups?

Homeworking may have its advantages for many employees, but employers should be cautious about whether homeworking has the practical effect of disadvantaging certain groups.

This may, for example, occur because of a lack of access to internet in rural areas, shared accommodation, disability, caring responsibilities, financial issues or other individual circumstances. Diversity and inclusion policies extend to homeworking and employers should invite and encourage employees to make any disadvantages known in order that reasonable steps can be taken to remove or reduce them.

As mentioned above, disabled employees may be entitled to auxiliary aids as a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010. If such an aid is reasonably needed, the employer needs to make sure it is provided – at its expense – to the individual when working from home.

 

Related Item(s): Employment, Covid 19 – Coronavirus, Occupational Health & Safety

Author(s)/Speaker(s): Abi Frederick, Annabel Lindsay,