On 13 May 2020, the UK government published guidance giving employers much needed clarity on how holiday entitlement and pay operate during the Coronavirus pandemic. It considers both those who continue to work and those who have been placed on furlough under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme.
When the government issued travel advice against all non-essential travel back in mid-March, perhaps we might have been forgiven for thinking that summer plans would be unaffected. However, it is becoming clear that such plans will also have to be put on hold and so employees may be considering cancelling their holiday bookings. READ MORE
Of the many new terms that we have learned as part of the current pandemic, ‘contact tracing’ is one that seems to offer some light at the end of the tunnel. READ MORE
On 15 April 2020, the Treasury, in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 71 and 76 of the Coronavirus Act 2020, gave a Direction to HMRC, setting out the mechanics of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS). Note, the Direction does not replace the HMRC Guidance, but a valid Direction has the standing of an Act of Parliament and is therefore subject to the usual rules of statutory interpretation. By way of background, please refer to our recent insight piece with the previous details of the Scheme and guidance for employers and employees: read here.
Asia Employment Law Update
Proposed Regulations May Complicate Reductions in Force in China
On December 31st, 2014, Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security (“MOHRSS”) issued a notice to solicit public opinions on the draft Regulations on Personnel Cutbacks by Enterprises (“Draft Regulations”). The Draft Regulations set out detailed implementing rules for “mass layoffs” (defined under the Labor Contract Law as being a layoff of more than 10% of the workforce or more than 20 employees) and, if adopted in their current form, will further complicate the process for conducting reductions in force in China.
You know how you wait for ages for a bus to come (well, we do in Europe) and then three come along at once? Well it’s a little like that in the data privacy arena right now, as far as transfer of international personal data is concerned, anyhow. For years, there has been a reasonably steady and fairly consistent position from the various bodies responsible for this complicated and often confusing area of law, but in the last few weeks we have been hit with a significant change overnight and we are all left wondering where to get off.