Refusal of furlough.

Jemima2204

Hi.
I work for a care home as a maintenance person and have had to shield as I am very high risk and some of the residents have proved positive for Covid 19.
I have asked my employer if I will get furloughed but have been told that I won't for the following reason.
The care home is receiving government funding to cover the extra costs incurred to employ staff whilst others are away from the workplace either shielding or self isolating so therefore they cannot furlough any staff as the government would not pay for this.
Is this correct or am I being lied to.

bradders1983

Seems fair enough, an employer can make up any reason they like to be honest, furlough is not a right.

Jemima2204

I am aware it is not a right and never implied that it was, what I asked was is it correct. If you cannot answer the question, I suggest you go and troll another thread.

Mrsn

To be honest I don’t think we would be able to tell you if it’s correct or not.

It’s the reason they’ve given and sadly there’s not a lot else you can do about the decision.

Jemima2204

That's kind of where I have got with it. I have trawled through all of the government websites trying to see if this is the case but found nothing. I'm hoping that someone on here has come up against a similar thing or knows the legalities. Fingers crossed.

68ComebackSpecial

Were you furloughed from March to July? 

Yahoo_Mail

Their reason doesn't make much sense. If they're receiving extra money to employ people to cover those who are shielding, then presumably you're being paid to shield?  In which case it wouldn't really matter if you're furlough or just paid to shield.

But it doesn't sound like that's the case or you wouldn't be here asking about furlough.

But despite you to not liking the answer, or the way it as phrased, bradders1983 is right.  Even if their excuse is a load of old codswallop they're not obliged to furlough you, regardless of your vulnerability so if they say no furlough, then it's no furlough.

Jemima2204

No. I received the letter from the government saying that I had to shield but unfortunately, those who were considered vulnerable didn't receive furlough they only got SSP.

unholyangel

Yahoo_Mail said:

Their reason doesn't make much sense. If they're receiving extra money to employ people to cover those who are shielding, then presumably you're being paid to shield?  In which case it wouldn't really matter if you're furlough or just paid to shield.

But it doesn't sound like that's the case or you wouldn't be here asking about furlough.

But despite you to not liking the answer, or the way it as phrased, bradders1983 is right.  Even if their excuse is a load of old codswallop they're not obliged to furlough you, regardless of your vulnerability so if they say no furlough, then it's no furlough.

I think what they're saying is they have been given emergency funding, from which to pay for any replacement staff, with shielding staff on contractual or statutory sick pay. 

At least, it's the way I've found reasonable to understand. 

Yahoo_Mail

unholyangel said:

Yahoo_Mail said:

Their reason doesn't make much sense. If they're receiving extra money to employ people to cover those who are shielding, then presumably you're being paid to shield?  In which case it wouldn't really matter if you're furlough or just paid to shield.

But it doesn't sound like that's the case or you wouldn't be here asking about furlough.

But despite you to not liking the answer, or the way it as phrased, bradders1983 is right.  Even if their excuse is a load of old codswallop they're not obliged to furlough you, regardless of your vulnerability so if they say no furlough, then it's no furlough.

I think what they're saying is they have been given emergency funding, from which to pay for any replacement staff, with shielding staff on contractual or statutory sick pay. 

At least, it's the way I've found reasonable to understand. 

Well if the shielding staff were on contractual pay I don't think the OP would be asking about furlough.  And SSP is paid by the Government is it not?  OK, it has to be reclaimed rather than a direct payment to the employee but they're not footing the bill for it.  Not sure why an employer who isn't paying their shielded staff can't use that money to pay for the people providing cover?

bradders1983

Jemima2204 said:

I am aware it is not a right and never implied that it was, what I asked was is it correct. If you cannot answer the question, I suggest you go and troll another thread.

Someone posting an answer you dont like is not "trolling". They can make anything up, the upshot is there isnt much you can do about it.