Shielding but not entitled to furlough?

BrianArdrey

If a person receives the "12 Week" Shielding Letter and has to self isolate, are they entitled to furlough if their job/role is still operating and another person has had to fill their role? 
Example: A receptionist has received the letter from the NHS requiring them to self-isolate.  However, the job is still required to be fulfilled and a replacement has taken over their job on the reception. Therefore, the company does have work for them and the job is not in anyway redundant.
Is the person on self-isolation eligible for furlough?
Sorry if this is written in a confusing manner.

InA

Yes.

If you are shielding in line with public health guidance, then you should speak to your employer about whether they plan to place staff on furlough.

sharpe106

InA said:

Yes.

If you are shielding in line with public health guidance, then you should speak to your employer about whether they plan to place staff on furlough.

No shielding by itself is not a criteria for furlough, the scheme is to protect jobs as you have said that job is being done by someone else so the job is not at risk.

InA

sharpe106 said:

InA said:

Yes.

If you are shielding in line with public health guidance, then you should speak to your employer about whether they plan to place staff on furlough.

No shielding by itself is not a criteria for furlough, the scheme is to protect jobs as you have said that job is being done by someone else so the job is not at risk.

I was thinking of this section from the Government guidance:

If your employee is on Statutory Sick Pay

Employees on sick leave or self-isolating should get Statutory Sick Pay, but can be furloughed after this.

Employees who are shielding in line with public health guidance can be placed on furlough.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claim-for-wage-costs-through-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme

This seems to go beyond a redundancy situation but it preserves the job of someone who is affected by covid-19. Of course, it is up to the employer whether or not they want to do this, and if they are now paying someone else they may have less manoeuvrability in terms of cash flow.

sharpe106

The scheme is to protect jobs, the job is not at risk so how can they claim? Although granted that is another interesting way of reading the scheme, but surely not what it was meant for. 

BrianArdrey

My understanding is that it's the role that is furloughed, NOT the person.  A role would be furloughed only if it is no longer required - i.e. a direct replacement of a lay off or a redundancy.  Therefore, if the job doesn't qualify for furlough, the person doesn't either, regardless of the persons circumstances.

unholyangel

No one is entitled to be furloughed. But their employer might decide to furlough rather than making redundant and then reclaim costs of eligible employees through the portal. 

InA said:

sharpe106 said:

InA said:

Yes.

If you are shielding in line with public health guidance, then you should speak to your employer about whether they plan to place staff on furlough.

No shielding by itself is not a criteria for furlough, the scheme is to protect jobs as you have said that job is being done by someone else so the job is not at risk.

I was thinking of this section from the Government guidance:

If your employee is on Statutory Sick Pay

Employees on sick leave or self-isolating should get Statutory Sick Pay, but can be furloughed after this.

Employees who are shielding in line with public health guidance can be placed on furlough.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claim-for-wage-costs-through-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme

This seems to go beyond a redundancy situation but it preserves the job of someone who is affected by covid-19. Of course, it is up to the employer whether or not they want to do this, and if they are now paying someone else they may have less manoeuvrability in terms of cash flow.

Is it saying shielding will make them eligible for furlough/eligible for the employer to reclaim the costs even where the job is still available? Or is it simply saying shielding is not a barrier to furloughing them if there is not enough demand in the job (ie you can furlough instead of SSP if the job isn't available for them to do)? 

Hermann

Edit: mis read OP

sharpe106

Yes it is the job rather then the person. I think InA example would defiantly be grasping at straws. But then again I thought companies being able to re-employ someone that had voluntarily left would be against the scheme to but apparently not. 

calcotti

sharpe106 said:

The scheme is to protect jobs, the job is not at risk so how can they claim? Although granted that is another interesting way of reading the scheme, but surely not what it was meant for. 

It is clear that employers can furlough employees who are shielding if the employer is generally furloughing employees. When placing employees on furlough the employer chooses which employees to furlough and they can therefore choose to include employees who are shielding in the pool of furloughed employees. Government guidance on this is clear, as already quoted by InA.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claim-a-grant-through-the-coronavirus-covid-19-self-employment-income-support-scheme

Employees who are shielding in line with public health guidance can be placed on furlough.

There has been discussion in numerous threads about whether an employee can furlough an employee just because they are shielding. Some think they can't, as sharpe106 says, which is the view I am inclined to. Some think they can. It's a point it would be really helpful for the government to clarify.

InA

sharpe106 said:

The scheme is to protect jobs, the job is not at risk so how can they claim? Although granted that is another interesting way of reading the scheme, but surely not what it was meant for. 

I agree that the intention of the scheme is to protect jobs for businesses. To my mind, an employee who has been ordered to self-isolate by the Government (as one of those most vulnerable) has been as adversely impacted as a restaurant or bar that has been forced to shut. I think with the Government's rush to prop up businesses and the economy it can be easy to lose sight of why we're all doing this. My personal opinion is that someone in this situation should be protected, whether that help comes from their employer or, more directly, from the Government.