My employer has hired a freelancer on a day rate to cover me whilst I'm on Furlough. Is this legal?

Dave_112

Hello.
I was hoping that someone might be able to help me out with a question that I have.
I have been furloughed since April and I have just found out that my employer has been hiring a freelancer/temp that we often use on an "as when needed" day rate to do work that I should be doing. Is this fraud or is it ok?
I've done a lot of research but I have been unable to find an answer.
Any advice will be gratefully accepted.

Thank you. 

unholyangel

If they were working your hours I'd say it would be an abuse of the scheme. However there are genuine circumstances that this might be required. Perhaps not enough work to offer you meaningful hours so a freelancer would cover the gap. 

Would you be open to working reduced hours (presumably at reduced pay)? If so, perhaps contact your employer and offer. Theyll still be incurring holiday pay, length of service etc liability for you so if a permanent staff member can do the work, it would likely be a preferred outcome for them.

[Deleted User]

Dave_112 said:

I have been furloughed since April and I have just found out that my employer has been hiring a freelancer/temp that we often use on an "as when needed" day rate to do work that I should be doing. Is this fraud or is it ok?

It is totally acceptable and is not in the slightest bit fraud.
It is also highly sensible under the existing furlough scheme, until flexible furlough kicks in at the start of July then each furlough period could be for a minimum of three weeks, you could then be brought back for as little as a day, but when re-furloughed it would need to be for another three week minimum. By furloughing you they can claim 80% of your wages, keeping you employed, by using the day rate worker to cover your work they can keep the clients serviced, meaning that there is a job for you to return to and they are doing so in the most economical way. The alternative would probably have been to make you redundant, then hire the day worker to cover the work as require, which would have been slightly more efficient financially, but would have resulted in you no longer having a job.

Dave_112 said:

Any advice will be gratefully accepted.

What exactly were you looking for though? Your employer is behaving reasonably and rationally and was keeping you employed, but you are searching for a way to trip them up. What do you/did you expect to gain?

jayzor

I don’t see an issue with it, the scheme is there to preserve jobs. If there isn’t enough work to justify having that member of staff in on a full time basis, then getting someone to work freelance on small amounts of work seems reasonable. I guess the worry for you would be that they are exploring options for when the furlough scheme ends and they don’t have enough work for someone on a permanent basis.

Dave_112

jayzor said:

I don’t see an issue with it, the scheme is there to preserve jobs. If there isn’t enough work to justify having that member of staff in on a full time basis, then getting someone to work freelance on small amounts of work seems reasonable. I guess the worry for you would be that they are exploring options for when the furlough scheme ends and they don’t have enough work for someone on a permanent basis.

Thank you very much.
This is exactly what has happened.
I just wanted some clarity on if they were being ethical as it seemed that they were saying that there was not enough work for me when in reality there was.
Thank you all for taking the time to answer.

bradders1983

Well yes they were right, there isnt enough work for you, hence why they have got someone in on a day by day basis if needed. 

LilElvis

Dave_112 said:

jayzor said:

I don’t see an issue with it, the scheme is there to preserve jobs. If there isn’t enough work to justify having that member of staff in on a full time basis, then getting someone to work freelance on small amounts of work seems reasonable. I guess the worry for you would be that they are exploring options for when the furlough scheme ends and they don’t have enough work for someone on a permanent basis.

Thank you very much.
This is exactly what has happened.
I just wanted some clarity on if they were being ethical as it seemed that they were saying that there was not enough work for me when in reality there was.
Thank you all for taking the time to answer.

Has the freelancer really been working full time for the duration of your furlough? More likely that they have been working a few days a week at a far lesser cost to your employer than your full time salary and with more flexibility. One would assume that you would not have agreed to working part time hours on a pro rata salary as opposed to 80% pay on furlough.

Grumpy_chap

It might not seem to be in the spirit of the furlough scheme, but it is legal and the only way the employer had to achieve flexibility for reduced and variable levels of work.

As the flexible furlough now comes in from tomorrow, the employer can use regular staff "as and when needed" and the justification for freelance staff to offer flexibility is withdrawn.

Thrugelmir

Dave_112 said:

jayzor said:

I don’t see an issue with it, the scheme is there to preserve jobs. If there isn’t enough work to justify having that member of staff in on a full time basis, then getting someone to work freelance on small amounts of work seems reasonable. I guess the worry for you would be that they are exploring options for when the furlough scheme ends and they don’t have enough work for someone on a permanent basis.

I just wanted some clarity on if they were being ethical as it seemed that they were saying that there was not enough work for me when in reality there was.

Bottom line is that the business needs to survive. Not a question of ethics. There was an element of work that needed doing. Not a time to be nit picky. One only has to look at the bigger picture of job losses to see that the stone that has hit the middle of the pond has a long way to ripple out.