Furlough for those shielding

YouSoShady

Hi,
Can a non-essential company that is not severely impacted by the Coronavirus still furlough employees such as those who need to shield, and those who are living with someone who is required to shield?

I understand it is at the company's discretion whether they decide to furlough staff or not, but is a reason for 'not being able' to furlough any staff (including those shielding) because the company is not badly affected by coronavirus reasonable in terms of the scheme itself or is the reason they are supplying for not being able to furlough anyone irrelevant?
Thanks in advance.

Mrsn

The main criteria of the furlough scheme still stands, jobs have to be at risk for the furlough scheme to apply.

At their discretion they can choose to furlough those shielding (family members is more of a grey area...) however it is entirely up to the employer and many are choosing not to do so.

Jeremy535897

Your question relates to whether an employer has to show that they are affected by coronavirus to furlough anyone, as opposed to the difficult question of furloughing shielding employees (the guidance says yes, the Treasury Directive appears to say something else). The guidance has been said to be unclear on this matter, and I agree, but the Treasury Directive seems clear:
"2.2 The purpose of CJRS is to provide for payments to be made to employers on a claim made in respect of them incurring costs of employment in respect of furloughed employees arising from the health, social and economic emergency in the United Kingdom resulting from coronavirus and coronavirus disease."
"2.5 No CJRS claim may be made in respect of an employee if it is abusive or is otherwise contrary to the exceptional purpose of CJRS."

sharpe106

Be interesting to see what if the advice to companies change. As I think most have been very unwilling to furlough staff for shielding as it was very unclear. The treasury directive is a bit more clear. Although I don't see why they have changed SSP so you can claim that for shielding if shielding by itself is a criteria for furloughing. 

calcotti

sharpe106 said:

Be interesting to see what if the advice to companies change. As I think most have been very unwilling to furlough staff for shielding as it was very unclear. The treasury directive is a bit more clear. Although I don't see why they have changed SSP so you can claim that for shielding if shielding by itself is a criteria for furloughing. 

Logically the entitlement to SSP suggests that shielding of itself is not sufficient reason to furlough the shielding employee if the employer is not otherwise adversely affected by coronavirus.

sharpe106

I agree with that but as Jeremy says the treasury directive states it is costs rather then actually be affected by coronavirus. So a little at odds with the original guidance.   

Galloglass

such as those who need to shield, and those who are living with someone who is required to shield?

The Statutory Instrument that @calcotti referred to earlier appears to indicate that an employee (in a contractual relationship with an employer) on the basis of health and safety / guidance / risk can shield (themselves) and apply for SSP. If that employee is not at risk but chooses to shield due to the possible effect on others, then they cannot claim SSP. 

It appears to merge contractual relations and health/safety. It does not appear to place the overall responsibility for wider family health on the employer.