The CJRS specifically addresses the situation where an employer
has made redundancies on or after 28 February but subsequently re-employs the
individuals and puts them on furlough. Even where the period of re-employment
begins after 19 March, such individuals can be furloughed and a claim made for
their wages under the scheme.
HMRC guidance does not make clear, however, whether employees in
this situation must have stopped working before 19 March (before being
re-engaged) in order to qualify for the scheme. In an updated briefing
paper, the House of Commons Library (in FAQ 14) notes the apparent
inconsistency on this point in HMRC guidance, and that the Treasury Direction
appears not to clarify the issue.
The briefing paper quotes employment law barrister and
commentator Darren Newman who points out the more pressing practical obstacle: employers
are unlikely to re-employ staff they have previously dismissed simply in order
to place them on furlough. Newman comments: ‘To be blunt, what is in it for the
employer? They incur the cost of administering the employee’s furlough pay and
face potential legal difficulties when the furlough period ends.’
The CJRS specifically addresses the situation where an employer
has made redundancies on or after 28 February but subsequently re-employs the
individuals and puts them on furlough. Even where the period of re-employment
begins after 19 March, such individuals can be furloughed and a claim made for
their wages under the scheme.
HMRC guidance does not make clear, however, whether employees in
this situation must have stopped working before 19 March (before being
re-engaged) in order to qualify for the scheme. In an updated briefing
paper, the House of Commons Library (in FAQ 14) notes the apparent
inconsistency on this point in HMRC guidance, and that the Treasury Direction
appears not to clarify the issue.
The briefing paper quotes employment law barrister and
commentator Darren Newman who points out the more pressing practical obstacle: employers
are unlikely to re-employ staff they have previously dismissed simply in order
to place them on furlough. Newman comments: ‘To be blunt, what is in it for the
employer? They incur the cost of administering the employee’s furlough pay and
face potential legal difficulties when the furlough period ends.’
.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=df04ab27_1)
