NEWS & ANALYSIS FMJ.CO.UK
LEGAL VIEW - WORKPLACE
6 SEPTEMBER 2020
NEW JOBS AND SKILLS SERVICE CATERS
FOR FORMER FOOD SERVICE PERSONNEL
Members of the food service
sector have come together to
launch ‘Food Service Circle’ (FSC)
– a platform that o ers support to
those working in the food service
sector a ected by the economic
fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Responding to the loss of jobs
within the food service sector due
to the impact of the COVID-19 crisis,
FSC has been launched as a one-stop
shop for all former team members; o ering free training, counsel, advice and job
opportunities. The companies involved in FSC include: ABM Catering, Amadeus,
Aramark, Artizian, Bartlett Mitchell, BaxterStorey, Blue Apple, Celtic Catering,
Churchill, CH&Co, Compass Group, Elior, Genuine Dining Co, Graysons, Harrison,
Houston and Hawkes, Lexington, OCS, Sodexo, Susa Comms and Vacherin.
For individuals looking to use the website for employment purposes, it has two
invaluable sections. The first provides resources to help apply for roles, CV writing
and interview skills. The second is a link to current vacancies across the sector
at all levels and all disciplines. These vary from frontline sta , chefs and unit
managers, to support function roles such as marketing, finance, HR and L&D.
As the portal has been set up in an incredibly short period of time, it is
envisaged content will grow further to provide an invaluable one stop shop for
food service professionals.
HYBRID HOME-OFFICE WORKING
MODEL IS CHANGING CEOS
LONG-TERM PLANS FOR OFFICES
Over two thirds (68 per cent) of UK CEOs believe there will be an enduring
shi towards low density o ice usage, with the move towards remote
collaboration resulting in long-term changes to o ice accommodation
strategies. This is according to PwC’s latest CEO pulse survey, which looks at
how business leaders have responded to the recent pandemic.
Against a backdrop where major organisations and retailers are considering
repurposing or closing properties within their portfolios, the survey reflects
how changes in how we live and work will impact the business models of
construction, infrastructure, real estate and housing organisations as they
respond to this ‘new norm’.
According to the survey over three
quarters of UK CEOs (86 per cent v
78 per cent globally) see a long-term
shi towards remote collaboration;
and three in four (77 per cent v 76 per
cent globally) predict an enduring
shi from traditional human labour to
automation.
The results suggest that the consequences of home working are starting
to fundamentally filter into long term thinking about existing o ice
accommodation models.
CEOs are divided about what role cities will play in the future with a third
believing the shi towards de-urbanisation (away from urbanisation) is
enduring with another third believing it is temporary.
Conversations with UK CEOs also suggest that a new hybrid model is
emerging with work being ‘something people do rather than a place to go to’.
The survey shows that one in four CEOs (24 per cent) are already prioritising
digital adoption as well as making their workforces more flexible and
smaller, a move that will enable them to be leaner and more agile.
CUTTING PAY AS AN ALTERNATIVE
TO REDUNDANCIES
BY ALAN LEWIS, PARTNER AT CONSTANTINE LAW
With the end of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS)
in sight, cash strapped UK employers are considering the
need for pay cuts and other costs-saving measures, alongside
possible redundancies.
However, if it is not handled correctly, cutting pay involves
substantial legal risks if claims from the aff ected workforce
follow. More importantly, the value of those claims can easily
exceed the costs savings that were planned.
Back to basics: a contract of employment is a legally binding
bargain struck between two (or more) parties.
Importantly, any changes to an employment contract,
and certainly any signifi cant changes, will require both
parties’ agreement. It follows from this that changes that are
implemented without the employee’s consent, will likely be
in breach of contract and could generate the following legal
claims against the business:
Unlawful deductions from wages– if, after suff ering a
unilateral pay cut, the employee informs their employer
that they do not accept the change, it is likely that they
will be able to sue their employer at the Employment
Tribunal for the return of all deducted pay. Such claims
are very diffi cult for any employer to defend.
Constructive unfair dismissal – case law supports the
view that a deliberate refusal by an employer to pay the
agreed remuneration to its employee will be a serious
breach of contract that will entitle the employee to resign
(a constructive dismissal) provided they do not delay too
long before communicating that decision. Compensation
awards can be as much as one year’s gross pay (currently
capped at £88,519).
Unenforceable post termination restrictions – when
constructively dismissed, any post termination
restrictions in an employee’s contract of employment
(e.g. non-solicitation of customers or fellow employees)
will fall away and will no longer be enforceable by the
employer. This can be very damaging where employees
leave to join competitors.
Protective Awards – if material pay cuts are imposed on
20 or more employees at one establishment within a 90
day period without proper consultation, the Courts and
Employment Tribunals can deem the employer to have
dismissed the employees from their old contracts and
to have imposed new and diff erent contracts in their
place. This triggers the UK’s collective redundancy laws
allowing claims for penalty (protective) awards of up to
90 days’ gross pay per aff ected worker (whether or not
they resign). That’s a potential hit of around 25 per cent
of annual payroll simply because the employer failed to
consult as the law requires.
From the above it is easy to see how hastily introduced pay
cuts can cause far more long-term cost and damage for a
business than the savings they were designed to achieve.
There are also the reputational risks and long-term damage to
the goodwill of those who stay to consider.
It is of course possible for employers to stay on the right side
of the law- even if urgent payroll costs savings are needed,
but it would certainly be sensible to be aware of the pitfalls-
especially as these measures don’t seem to be going away any
time soon.