Employer breaking the law?

len277

i was furloughed for 6 weeks and have been back working since the 18th of May. I get payed at the end of the month for the month I’ve done. Example: mays wages get paid on the 29th of May. No working month in hand. 
My employer said to me this morning that I will only get the 80% pay this month and get the remaining 20% in June’s pay. Even though I would’ve worked 2 full weeks in May ( 10 days )
1. Can they actually do that?
2. Is my employer technically still got me down as a furloughed employee and making some extra income for themselves and committing fraud as why wouldn’t I be paid for the 2 weeks I’ve worked this month. 

Thrugelmir

Perhaps the payroll was run incorrectly and you'll receive the shortfall next month in addition to your basic pay.  If this was the case then would be very apparent if there was a subsequent audit. 

Grumpy_chap

Without quite a lot more information, no-one can say any more than Thrugelmir has.  A genuine mistake seems the most likely reason, unless you have other cause to suspect that your employer would break the law.  Do they normally?

len277

Grumpy_chap said:

Without quite a lot more information, no-one can say any more than Thrugelmir has.  A genuine mistake seems the most likely reason, unless you have other cause to suspect that your employer would break the law.  Do they normally?

Thank you both for your replies!!

no I wouldn’t say they do, but can be a cheap skate. The reason I was told was that they didn’t want to pay an £18 accountant fee to administer another pay roll for the month. Which I feel is morally wrong but that’s a whole different subject. 
Part of the reason for the question was asked in the first place and a major concern is that I’m a tradesman who works in people’s houses and if I’m classed as on furlough leave I’m not actually insured as an employee If the worst was to happen. 
I did look online for an answer to see if I had to sign something to say I’ve completed my furlough leave like I did when I started but couldn’t find anything. 

Grumpy_chap

If you are an employee, and I assume you have a proper employment contract and just a normal job, PAYE, holiday pay etc., then all the while you are working in what you do for work and presenting yourself as working as you do under the instruction of your employer, then there remains a duty of care for your employer towards you and vicarious liability for your actions, so any insurance would still remain in force from your employer.  Even if the insurance company could argue their way out of any claim, the employer would still remain liable, not you personally. 

I cannot see any reason why that duty of care would be reduced just because the employer had broken the law in some other area, particularly as that is a financial / tax area that you as a tradesman would not reasonably be expected to be knowledgeable about.  Would be different if you were being asked to break the law in how you fix a gas boiler (for example) because, as the qualified tradesman, you could be expected to know in this area (or, at the very least know you don't know and therefore can't repair a gas boiler).

If you are working outside of your role in the company, or for someone else then that would possibly be outside the control of the employer and they would have no liability.  This is if you are not acting under the employer, but on a "frolic of your own."

With regard to the furlough question, you need to agree to be placed on furlough because that is considered to be a variation to your normal established contract and, hence, can only be done with your agreement.  In terms of the company ending furlough, that is simply returning you back to the normal established contract so I can't see that it needs any written agreement (to just do what you normally do under the normal rules).  There is also the fact that time might prevent that in some cases - an employer could get work and need an employee back same day to do that work, so no time to agreements to be sent, signed and returned.  Also, by returning to normal work, you have agreed to end furlough by your actions, have you not?  If you are worried, keep a note of who asked you to return back to work, when and how.  I don't see it as likely that employees would be liable for returning to work but the employer still claiming furlough.  You would not know normally if the company was breaking tax law, so why would you know in this example?