Forum Home → Discussion → Covid-19 issues → Thread
Shielding and SSP
As announced people who have been instructed to shield themselves are now entitled to SSP https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/welfare-rights/news/item/extension-of-entitlement-to-statutory-sick-pay-to-those-who-are-shielding-as-a-result-of-the-coronavirus-outbreak
Guidance on the CJRS says that employees who are shielding are entitled to be furloughed.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claim-for-wage-costs-through-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme#employees-you-can-claim-for
“If your employee is on sick leave or self-isolating as a result of Coronavirus, they’ll be able to get Statutory Sick Pay, subject to other eligibility conditions applying.
..
Employers are also entitled to furlough employees who are being shielded or off on long-term sick leave. It is up to employers to decide whether to furlough these employees.”
The Treasury Direction issued in respect of the CJRS says:
“Where Statutory Sick Pay is payable or liable to be payable in respect of an employee (whether or not a claim to Statutory Sick Pay is made) at the time when the instruction in paragraph 6.1(a) is given (“original SSP”), the period described in paragraph 6.1(b) in respect of the employee does not begin until the original SSP has ended (but any subsequent entitlement to Statutory Sick Pay by virtue of the employee becoming unfit for work again after the original SSP has ended must be disregarded).”
An employee who is shielding is entitled to SSP which therefore means that SSP is liable to be payable for as long as the employee is shielding. The Treasury Direction therefore appears to prevent an employer putting a employee who is shielding on furlough despite the CJRS guidance.
I suspect the Treasury Direction was written without reference to the new entitlement for shielding employees to be paid SSP.
Or am I reading too much into it?
[ Edited: 16 Apr 2020 at 10:38 am by Ianb ]My immediate thought is that it has been done as some employees will receive more from SSP than they would have from 80% of wage but I haven’t yet run any figures to see if that could be the case!
It’s a good point about the Treasury Direction Ianb - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/879484/200414_CJRS_DIRECTION_-_33_FINAL_Signed.pdf
It could well mean that if you are instructed to stop work after 15.04.20, and you are classed by PHE etc as “extremely vulnerable”, you can only claim SSP and not benefit from the CJRS. It certainly reads that way to me.
It’s a good point about the Treasury Direction Ianb - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/879484/200414_CJRS_DIRECTION_-_33_FINAL_Signed.pdf
It could well mean that if you are instructed to stop work after 15.04.20, and you are classed by PHE etc as “extremely vulnerable”, you can only claim SSP and not benefit from the CJRS. It certainly reads that way to me.
That’s my concern because it reads that way to me - but I doubt if that is what is intended. I do wonder if the Treasury Direction was written without knowledge that shielding were to be entitled to SSP.
As an aside it remains unclear to me whether an employer can furlough an employee who is shielding (and unable to work from home) if the employer is generally unaffected by coronavirus given that the CJRS is for businesses affected by coronavirus. I
[ Edited: 16 Apr 2020 at 10:38 am by Ianb ]
A slight aside to your main point Ian, I note the new Regs cover those shielding but not their other household members :
“The person—
(a)is defined in public health guidance as extremely vulnerable and at very high risk of severe illness from coronavirus because of an underlying health condition; and
(b)has been advised, by notification sent to, or in respect of, that person in accordance with that guidance, to follow rigorously shielding measures for the period specified in the notification.”
I’ve got a client who’s in the shielding group and her daughter has been sent home from work by her employer because of the risk to her mother. Daughter is apprentice working in pet shop 30h/week and the employer hasn’t communicated at all about JRS - think she should be furloughed? If she is furloughed and paid 80% of salary she will be over the under 25 rate of UC but advised her to claim UC for now.
The regs seem to written in such a way that if she can’t be furloughed, she can’t claim SSP either as the daughter is not the one who is in the shielding group
No reason why the employer can’t furlough the daughter… He is under no obligation to send her home, and refusing her the work could either be breach of contract or effectively a dismissal (and potentially an unfair one at that).
we had a long discussion about a month ago in the interpretation of the first SSP amendments ( I was initially wrong and it became clear they were intended for those who were self-isolating only). It seems a shame that they could not have authorised SSP for both self-isolating and shielding at that point rather than changing their minds a month later. I hope it is not because SSP is less expensive than furloughing!
we had a long discussion about a month ago in the interpretation of the first SSP amendments ( I was initially wrong and it became clear they were intended for those who were self-isolating only). It seems a shame that they could not have authorised SSP for both self-isolating and shielding at that point rather than changing their minds a month later. I hope it is not because SSP is less expensive than furloughing!
Less expensive to the government but more expensive for the employer. If the employer is able to choose whether to pay SSP or to furlough, if they are furloughing employees it is cheaper to furlough and recover cost through CJRS rather than pay SSP which cannot be recovered (except for first 14 days if less than 250 employees).