Furlough 'contract': mixed messages. Not sure to what extent i am furloughed.

Forum_Name

Hi. I enquired previously as to whether you can dip in and out of being furloughed and the response i received was no, you're furloughed for a minimum of three weeks. I checked with the member here who said that whether that was a typing error - did they really mean minimum & yes they did.
The following day i received an email from my employer saying they were going to furlough me. This also mentioned three weeks minimum (specifically states minimum). So ok i'm furloughed for three weeks i thought, as in i don't have to go in to work for three weeks, so i thought.

There's some things in the furlough 'contract' if you will, that i wouldn't say are contradictory but they confuse me as to where we stand.
It states i can email my acceptance of being furloughed and once this is done i am deemed a furloughed worker. 
It specifically states that during the furlough period i must not do any work for my employer but i must be available for work and any work that i do carry out will cease the furlough period. Not quite sure what that means. If it means that after 3 weeks are up i am to return to work then that's fine. If it means if i get a call in the middle of week 2 to say i'm to return then that doesn't make sense if the minimum you're furloughed is three weeks. Basically i don't understand that line.
It then goes on to say that the minimum furlough period is three weeks.

The letter, which we are to sign upon our return (we only email our acceptance back for now) closes out by saying that i am signing to say i agree to being furloughed until the employer ceases the furlough period.


That's the letter part of it. The company i work for you could call it a branch of a parent company and this works closely with another branch - staff can at times work for the other branch, as in do jobs for, while they still get paid by their 'usual' branch and are employed by their usual branch.
Now i have had an employee of this other branch in touch with me. I can guarantee what was said would be 100% true, as in this employee would not be 'having me on'. 

Basically this employee was in touch with the boss of their branch to discuss this furlough. Employee was told they could do jobs for (my branch).
I said i didn't understand that as my branch is closed. Where this employee would be put to work, the entire department and surrounding departments have shut down/been furloughed. I've seen the list of names of people who were being furloughed - there isn't anyone left.

Employee said that "some" staff are going to get called in, starting "this week" to do odd jobs. 

So let's say it's Friday then that people are being called in. We're late night Tuesday right now so that'll be 2 days notice and we'll have only been off work/furloughed for 8 business days or 10 calendar days ...... not 3 weeks.


To be honest, i was quite glad to be furloughed. I work in a place that is quite difficult to meet the guidelines. The general public not cleaning before they deal with you, staff you work with not washing their hands, people constantly refusing to keep the 2 metre distance, the job itself being impossible (in certain areas) to keep even a 1 metre distance. I can only make sure i follow the guidelines regards washing hands, keeping distance etc. I can't control everyone else, so on that basis i was happy to be furloughed. Not because i'm work shy but because i think despite my best efforts, i'd be at risk with the people i'm dealing with on a daily basis and living with very high 'at risk' people, i wasn't comfortable with that.

I'm just not really sure where i stand on this. The letter says three weeks minimum but that we need to be available for work, and now i'm hearing that people (which would be specifically my department) are going to get called back in "this week". You can't be furloughed for a minimum three week but then go back within 10 days.

So confused. Advice very much welcome. Thank you.

7Phil

Your contract amendment to furlough you may come with its own conditions at your employer's discretion.
If they furlough you for 3 days and then get you back to work then you can expect your full entitlement under their conditions which they have put you on.
Whether your situation is then eligible for them to claim back your 80% wage will come between them and the rules of the scheme. That should not be your problem. They pay you as per your agreement. If HMRC don't pay them then it's their issue.

If you are on furlough you cannot do any work for your employer at all for you to be eligible for them to recoup your salary under the grant. That includes other branches, sister businesses or anything else connected to the business.

If that means your employer has decided to, at their risk, pay you to be at home but be on call to work at another branch if needed then as long as that's part of the agreement you make with them then you can absolutely expect to be paid by them for your furlough time.

If you are aware that you will only get back what HMRC will grant them then you should hold your ground and stick to the rules.

Hermann

If you return to work in under three weeks then none of your time off is considered furloughed. This means your employer would not be able claim a refund on any of your wages Your employer would be liable for your pay in the normal manner.

What you would receive as pay is less clear to me, I suspect it depends on your contract, which is varied by the agreement you now have. The amount would no longer be fixed at 80% minimum but would be whatever your contract allows.

As far as other branches or sister companies are concerned it remains that furloughed staff can do no work for a min of 3 weeks. Staff that are not furloughed can be redeployed.

Forum_Name

I should explain: the employee that was talking to me said some staff are being brought back in this week. 
The short version of that is that either my entire department or individuals from my department would go in to do their usual duties within my department for their usual branch as per normal.
So i wouldn't be working for another branch/sister company. It's only that this employee works for that sister company and that's how i was told. I know it's easy for outsiders to say that maybe this employee is wrong but i can assure you that what they told me they will have been told by their boss, who is also a boss in my company/branch too.

I've read your replies, and thank you very much, but i'm confused. Top and bottom of it - can they call me in to work tomorrow?
I look at the part of the letter that says "three weeks minimum" and think surely not but then who knows. There's no fine print to this letter. Everything that are key details i've listed here. 

Unless they call me back tomorrow (for example) in which case i take that the entire past week they will not get anything from the government for it and they would have to pay me in full (not SSP) ... 100%?

Really though, i'm not that bothered what i receive as pay. I know that will come across as strange but i'm not. The relief at the start to think, that's me 'safe' at least for 3 weeks was unreal. 

So basically i am really looking more to find out whether i am off for 3 weeks and that's the end of it (until that 3 weeks is up) or whether after being furloughed and agreeing to it, i can be told to turn up for work the very next day for example (ok it's not the next day because that would've been last week, but the point is - within the 3 week period)? The pay is a side issue to my concern.

I've read their letter again & again: nothing says specifically they can have you return within the 3 week period. It only says the minimum you're furloughed for is 3 weeks but that you must be available for work which may or may not contradict the first point about it being for a minimum of 3 weeks.

Hermann

Firstly the conditions are by agreement between both you and employer.

You don't have to agree to them, but that will possibly lead to your employer just making you redundant instead..

If you agree your employers initial intention is to furlough you for a min of 3. weeks However they can call you back to work during that time which ends your furlough and puts you back to employed as per your contract.

The only reason I can imagine for them saying furlough when they intend to call you back and not furlough would be to compel you to agree to the change in the employment contract in the belief you get 3 weeks off, then they call you back but are now under less advantageous contract 

Forum_Name

I've already agreed to the furlough. Nothing in the letter sent out indicates any reason why i shouldn't agree. As you say, it's better than the other options.

I've been Googling after hearing this from the other employee and as you say, if they call you back and therefore cancel the furlough, they are likely to not receive the grant. I imagine just for each person they call back.
Again, say you've been off for exactly 1 week. I am guessing they would then need to pay you 1 weeks wage in full. Not sure how that goes with people on variable earnings. There's 6 people in my department. If sending people back you would need 3 minimum, perhaps 4. They may wish to recall all 6 but you would need 3 as a minimum in my opinion. That's 3 weeks on full pay, assuming what i just said is correct, they'd need to pay people for having just sat on their backside ..... and that's just in my department. With the other departments that are likely to be required (i'm pure guessing right now) to run along side my department you could be looking at 8-15 people perhaps, so that's 8-15 weeks worth of wages they'd need to pay up (again if i'm right earlier) just for people sat on their backside for 1 week.

OR, they ride the 3 weeks out and then reopen and they don't pay a penny for people sat on their backside. This one would make sense to me but if the actual boss has spoken about people going back then they're clearly looking at it. Unless they think they can work around it somehow.

mutter

Interesting post as my son was formally furloughed on Friday afternoon but he and a couple of guys were told to come in for a couple of hours to tidy things up in the warehouse, clean the vans and put everything 'to bed' for the duration, which they all felt was a reasonable request and complied.
Except, now the employer has asked my son to go in tomorrow morning because there's 'a few orders in which need to be picked and delivered.
My son pointed out that this wasn't what furlough meant, but was told that as he was getting 80% of his wages, it wasn't too much to ask him to do a few hours work.
Son isn't an assertive character and is keen to hold on to his job in the long term, if at all possible, so doesn't want to rock the boat and will do as he's been asked, but it's raised the question of how many firms are seeing this as an opportunity to get work done for free?

Hermann

The only possibility I can see for problems is what your amended contract is.

If you're now on a zero hours contract then the employer calls you back after one week, then no furlough 80% payments apply and instead you only get paid for hours worked meaning you don't get paid anything for your week off.

It's all down to whatever your contract and amendment says. None us can tell you that bit.

Forum_Name

Regards any amendment - i don't know. I haven't had any amendment put my way. The only thing i've had put my way since this Coronavirus is the furlough contract/deal/letter or whatever it should be called, the key points of which i detailed earlier in this thread. 

Regards my contract i have checked this and it says that i have a 40 hour normal working week. It doesn't say anything about zero hours. 
It does go on to say i will be required to work overtime which will also include weekends but again, nothing about zero hours. It specifically states 40 hours.

Hope that helps you help me?

mutter - to me that sounds very much the definition of cake & eating it surely? They're not paying your son to work, the government are, so essentially it's free labour ....right?

Oh and in case it makes a difference, i've worked at my place for a number of years, much more than just 24 months.

Hermann

The amendment is the email you got about agreeing to the furlough.

If that hasn't changed your hours then it's your employers decision but you get paid, it's just a question of whether they can reclaim it or pay it themselves. And whether you get 80% at home furloughed or 100% back at work.

I'm not really sure what it is that your concerned about?

Forum_Name

Hermann said:

The amendment is the email you got about agreeing to the furlough.

If that hasn't changed your hours then it's your employers decision but you get paid, it's just a question of whether they can reclaim it or pay it themselves. And whether you get 80% at home furloughed or 100% back at work.

I'm not really sure what it is that your concerned about?

Sorry, i thought i said earlier.
I'm concerned whether they can tell me i have to go back to work tomorrow as when i received their letter/contract i was under the impression i was home for 3 weeks on 80% furlough pay. To be honest with you, i would rather be at home on 80% pay than at work on 100% pay so i am not really wanting to go back before the 3 weeks is up as i thought i was 'safe' for at least 3 weeks.

The days leading up to the furlough were a nightmare. Constantly asking the public and other staff to keep their distance from me. Some took it fine, others would start to basically insult you for it, make negative remarks towards you, put you down, that kind of thing. 
Well sorry for not wanting to put myself at risk of dying any sooner than i should be eh?
On top of that the fact that a number of job requirements fall foul of the 2 metre rule. It just made everything very difficult.

You drop dead, it's no big deal to them. They just get another unskilled worker to take your place. Your family wont be so keen on you dying though. 
Ok that's extreme i know, but with the numbers as they are, we can't just assume it wont happen to us either & like i said, i have high risk people i live with so this concerns me greatly.

So yeah, top and bottom of it is i don't want to go back before the 3 weeks is up. Once the 3 weeks is up fair enough, their letter/contract said 3 weeks so it is what it is, i go back. This isn't me wanting to be workshy. The number of hours i do in a week would squash that idea straight away. This is me wanting to not get this damn virus. Since i finished work last week i haven't been away from the house once.


IF they can call me back, tomorrow say, then really what on earth was the point in anyone being furloughed at our place? We may as well have just carried on as we were and not messed about this past week pretending to furlough.