My company won't rehire me and furlough....Help!!

IB70mollyphoebe

My company made me redundant last week because of the Coronavirus, I am in recruitment. I have asked to be taken back on and furloughed, but have been told no is being reinstated as there is "barely enough work for the staff already here".... but I just want to be furloughed so I can get the 80%. Do I have any legal recourse? Isn't this going against what the government is saying which is take people back on you have let go since Feb 28th?? I feel completely sick. I am a widow, on my own, 2 kids aged 8. 

mwarby

How long did you work there ? If over 2 years you may have recourse through an employment tribunal, if less that route wouldn't be open to you AFAIK

7Phil

I am also very interested to know about this point. I think any employer that does not attempt to try and reverse such decisions and allow staff to be furloughed are both turning their backs on their workers and turning their backs on the economy that this scheme is designed to protect.
My friend is in a similar position - she is a physiotherapist working salary for a private clinic (2 years would be in August). She has had the exact same thing and the clinic boss stated it's due to the ~six weeks it will take for the scheme to refund employers that they cannot afford to keep going under the furlough scheme, in their case.
I would also love clarity based on this situation too.

Jeremy535897

We don't have enough information on the coronavirus job retention scheme yet. I would have hoped that businesses would seek a business interruption loan to fund payments to furloughed employees until HMRC payments come through, but I am afraid to say that if your employer doesn't think your post is worth preserving, there's nothing you can do, other than seek redundancy payments and statutory notice payments as set out in law or your employment contract, 

7Phil

Employers that don't think your post is worth preserving but have the power to do (at least to keep people with an income during this crisis on furlough) are contributing to this turmoil, and I am unable to understand how someone could be so inhumane at such a time.

Jeremy535897

They are really saying that their staff numbers exceed what they require for the foreseeable future. Coronavirus is just the tipping point. The coronavirus job retention scheme exists to preserve jobs for the future. It is not there to give employees 80% of three (or maybe more) months' extra wages if the employer has already decided that they will be made redundant as soon as the scheme ends. That may seem inhumane, but the alternative is dishonest.

calcotti

There is no obligation on employers to make use of the Job Retention Scheme. It's an incentive scheme.

HornetSaver

Extremely reluctant to be critical of the Government but I think the purpose of furlough has been miscommunicated and not enough has been done to hold them to account for the communication gap. Furlough is a package for employers which is very generous to the employees affected, rather than a package for employees. Universal Basic Income - with a tax rise that kicks in to catch those who are working and also in receipt of UBI, is the answer here.

calcotti

HornetSaver said:

Extremely reluctant to be critical of the Government but I think the purpose of furlough has been miscommunicated and not enough has been done to hold them to account for the communication gap. 

I think there are a lot of communication gaps which are causing confusion. Statements are being made before the detail has been worked out - which in the circumstances may be inevitable.

7Phil

Jeremy535897 said:

They are really saying that their staff numbers exceed what they require for the foreseeable future. Coronavirus is just the tipping point. The coronavirus job retention scheme exists to preserve jobs for the future. It is not there to give employees 80% of three (or maybe more) months' extra wages if the employer has already decided that they will be made redundant as soon as the scheme ends. That may seem inhumane, but the alternative is dishonest.

I still do not agree. If the employee would not have been made redundant if coronavirus did not come along then that means they have been because of it. That's not being dishonest. It's a time of uncertainty anyway. The employer should give the employee the benefit of the doubt and secure their income through this period if they had the power to do so.

calcotti

7Phil said: The employer should give the employee the benefit of the doubt and secure their income through this period if they had the power to do so.

You may think that’s the ‘right’ thing for the employer to do but they are under no obligation to do this.