Get back to the office! But why?

Thank you.
Well, we're certainly living in interesting times.

It would be good to keep this thread going so that we can watch as things evolve in workplaces.

I hope you realise Grandad that if there is evidence that employees are being selected for dismissal om medical grounds, there is a strong possibility the employer will be sued, unless there's a suitable redundancy package. If somebody is made redundant, that job ceases to exist and the person must not be replaced by somebody doing the same job. Employment Tribunals take a very dim view if employers who do not follow correct procedures.

Likewise, if an employer has staff with medical conditions which are known to put an employee at high risk of being badly affected by Covid 19, the employer must make reasonable adjustments. The employer should be making sure all staff are as safe as possible, but in the case of somebody with a known medical condition, the law could result in the employer being many tens of thousands of pounds out of pocket.

I would suggest the employer seeks advice from a properly qualified employment lawyer. Not going so could end up being very expensive for them.

growstuff

I hope you realise Grandad that if there is evidence that employees are being selected for dismissal om medical grounds, there is a strong possibility the employer will be sued, unless there's a suitable redundancy package. If somebody is made redundant, that job ceases to exist and the person must not be replaced by somebody doing the same job. Employment Tribunals take a very dim view if employers who do not follow correct procedures.

Likewise, if an employer has staff with medical conditions which are known to put an employee at high risk of being badly affected by Covid 19, the employer must make reasonable adjustments. The employer should be making sure all staff are as safe as possible, but in the case of somebody with a known medical condition, the law could result in the employer being many tens of thousands of pounds out of pocket.

I would suggest the employer seeks advice from a properly qualified employment lawyer. Not going so could end up being very expensive for them.

This is almost certainly legislation that the Tories would like to see weakened.

What’s the betting this will be in their sights before long?

The government’s social distancing guidelines for England, last updated in August, say it is “at the discretion of employers” as to how staff work safely. This can be by working from home, or by making workplaces safe by following Covid-19 secure guidelines—including ensuring social distancing is maintained. The guidance says those classed as clinically extremely vulnerable “should carry on working from home wherever possible”.

The advice in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is that all people should work from home if possible.

Although this says "should" and is, therefore, not a directive enforceable in law, any employer who chose to force anybody classed as clinically extremely vulnerable to work in an office, when it would be possible to work at home efficiently, and the employee subsequently became infected, would be on extremely shaky ground. The employer could be shown to be ignoring the government's own guidelines.

If the employer were to select a person for redundancy solely on medical grounds, he/she would almost certainly be guilty of discrimination.

If the person cannot continue with a job on medical grounds because it just is not possible to work remotely, he/she must be dismissed legally with a redundancy package.

Currently, public transport is less full then usual, so it's easier to maintain social distancing and is consequently safer than it would be for those who need to use it, if everybody were back to normal working. If the government is serious about keeping infection rates low and saving lives, it makes sense to encourage some people to go back to office working, but not to force, shame and threaten them.

There doesnt appear to be any logic in this arguement though, if a job can be outsourced to another country it wont matter whether you are doing that job at home or in the office, those decisions wont be based on where people sit. If you could argue that those private companies who are spending vast amounts on city centre premises will be at high risk of going under.

The employment rights of workers in Britain is already some of the weakest within the European Union member states and has been for a considerable number of years.

Any employee must have been employed for two full years with any company before they become entitled to any state minimum redundancy payment. That minimum is then is only one weeks pay for each full year of service where a worker is under the age of forty-five, and one and a half weeks pay where the employee is over the age of forty-five.

Any worker must have been employed by an organisation for two full years before they can take any case for unfair dismissal to an industrial court (industrial tribunal).

A thousand-pound deposit can be demanded from those bringing litigation by an industrial court which can be retained by that same court should the claimant lose the case.

Where a worker cannot fulfil their contracted job role due to medical reasons an employer is entitled to carry out an employment compatibility review in which all options as to an employees future with the company, including dismissal where no other option is available, can be evaluated.

In the case of a worker being highly susceptible to incurring covid-19 then that situation in itself may be grounds for dismissal if a role within a company cannot be found for that worker where the risks are reduced to acceptable levels.

The above has been the reason why the Health & Safety Executive have in many employment circumstances demanded that workplace generic risk assessments should be "weighted" where that generic assessment covers ethnic and other person known to have a higher risk of becoming very seriously ill should they incur Covid-19.

Therefore "weighting" of a numeric risk assessment for any task has to be increased by twenty to thirty percent in the instance of those with added vulnerability within the employed workforce.

However, provided that an employer carries out the above procedures an employee can be dismissed on medical grounds if any risk assessment minimum numeric parameters cannot be met by an employee and no alternative work is available which would allow him/her to meet those parameters within the workplace.

Several test case hearings (Landmark Hearings) in regard to the above are due to be heard by industrial courts. However, when those cases will get to be heard due to the current backlog in the court system is anyone's guess. There would undoubtedly then be appeals to the higher courts whatever the verdict and the whole matter could be many months if not years before a final outcome is known.

Insurance organisations carrying employers liability security have now become very involved with all the foregoing placing added pressure on all in this scenario.

Oh! I think there is logic. The logic is that the owners of office blocks risk losing a huge amount of money.

The rail companies also risk losing money (most of them already are), so there will need to be a government decision about supporting them. One way or the other, strategic planning and good brains are needed.

Grandad This is very strange. You've been bleating on for ages about how the law protects employees. Is thus a U-turn?

I agree with you that it would be grounds for dismissal if alternative employment would be appropriate. (And I already stated that.) However, it could be challenged in the courts, if employers target an employee solely because an employee can't work in an office, when remote working is possible.

PS. This isn't just about the Health and Safety Act. This would also involve the Equality Act, about which you have previously shown you don't have a deep understanding.

growstuff

Grandad This is very strange. You've been bleating on for ages about how the law protects employees. Is thus a U-turn?

I agree with you that it would be grounds for dismissal if alternative employment would be appropriate. (And I already stated that.) However, it could be challenged in the courts, if employers target an employee solely because an employee can't work in an office, when remote working is possible.

PS. This isn't just about the Health and Safety Act. This would also involve the Equality Act, about which you have previously shown you don't have a deep understanding.

growstuff I have never "bleated" in regard to any matter of employment on this forum.

I regard to "equality" in the current crisis I believe that I have covered that matter in my post @7:53 today if you read it thoroughly.

Britain has excellent regulations in regard to industrial injury or ill health incurred through an industrial process and that is covered under the Health & Safety At Work Act and the "six pack" of encompassed regulations that surrounds that act.

However, in this unprecedented crisis, much of what is being carried out falls within the realms of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.

Vulnerability rather than equality is the premier consideration in the present circumstances as Britain approaches what may be the perfect industrial storm of the Covid crisis and a no-deal exit from the European Union.

Ad nauseam

I see that the government is bullying civil servants to return to the office.

Most civil service jobs are eminently suitable to be carried out at home, why on earth would any thinking person want to crowd the public transport just when the biggest danger of a second wave is beginning to rear its head.

My goodness they are an unpleasant bunch of people.

Furret

Ad nauseam

So, will workers be able to involve their unions if they feel forced into returning when it's not necessary?
Is it already happening?

growstuff,
Furret
You can always tell when someone has lost a argument or debate on this forum when those persons make one line nonsense posts or resort to personal comments.??

Whitewavemark2

I see that the government is bullying civil servants to return to the office.

Most civil service jobs are eminently suitable to be carried out at home, why on earth would any thinking person want to crowd the public transport just when the biggest danger of a second wave is beginning to rear its head.

My goodness they are an unpleasant bunch of people.

Dom wants a culture war.

MissAdventure

So, will workers be able to involve their unions if they feel forced into returning when it's not necessary?
Is it already happening?

I guess it depends what grounds they have. If the employer wants them back and can provide a Covid safe environment, the employees don't have a good reason to refuse.

Some companies (including some civil service offices) can't provide a Covid safe environment. The offices aren't big enough and "hot desking" isn't safe.

The government's own advice is for clinically vulnerable people to stay at home, where possible. An employer would have to have a good reason to justify why working at home would not be possible in such cases.

MissAdventure

So, will workers be able to involve their unions if they feel forced into returning when it's not necessary?
Is it already happening?

I think taking employers to a tribunal could be problematic unless the employee has underlying health conditions which due to Covid-19 they need to shield.

When signing a contract of employment it normally has details of place of work, duties expected, times and hours of employment. Commuting has always been uncomfortable, sweaty bodies in the heat and colds in the colder months none of which deterred people from applying for jobs in City Centres, out of town Commerce Hubs or Industrial Estates.

If shop workers, carers, NHS staff, Teachers, Police, Fire Services, Road sweepers. Rubbish collectors and many other employment sectors have to be in-situ to do their job is it unreasonable to expect office workers not to?

More and more people I know are returning to their offices, some full time others on a part time basis, a few have been told that they will not be asked to return until next year. It is not a one size fits all situation.

Crossed posts growstuff, agree regarding clinically vulnerable and the practicalities of hot dealing.

MissAdventure

So, will workers be able to involve their unions if they feel forced into returning when it's not necessary?
Is it already happening?

I believe it is the Unite union along with the GMB that are bringing the test cases I referred to earlier in this thread before the industrial courts.

However, when those landmark cases will get heard in the current situation anybody can have a guess at.

I've just been looking at acas advice about returning. It's quite vague, actually, because there are so many scenarios.

Mostly it's along the lines of communicating and trying to find a resolution that is acceptable to both the worker and employer.

My eldest daughter works for the CS

She's been chomping at the bit to get back

Her job can't be done at home. Maybe in years to come but at present it's not possible

Her and her colleagues are all very ready to return to the office.

She's been back now for about 3 weeks, doing less hours but they've been told that it's all back to normal in mid September.

There has been a very interesting case of a worker telling colleges in a manufactoring plant that he was going to attend an illegal rave a few weeks back. That information got back to a supervisor in the plant and the rave made the national news.

On reporting for work on the Monday the supervisor ask the lad if he had attended the rave, to which he proudly answered yes.

He was then immediately suspended from working and sent home while a full disciplinary hearing was arranged for later that week. At that hearing, a line manager invoked the section of the Health & Safety at Work Act that deals with employees responsibilities while working and that their work or other actions while carrying out their duties must not endanger others in the vicinity of their work.

In attending the rave the employee it was alleged had exposed himself to a far higher risk of contracting Covid-19 and had therefore in his attendance at the workplace had exposed others to that same higher risk.

He has therefore been dismissed for gross misconduct in the workplace. It is also being reported that a trade union solicitor has told the now-former employee that she believes that the employer has acted correctly in their action.

One for many to consider I feel????

MissAdventure

I've just been looking at acas advice about returning. It's quite vague, actually, because there are so many scenarios.

Mostly it's along the lines of communicating and trying to find a resolution that is acceptable to both the worker and employer.

That's exactly how it should be. In the end, it's a commercial decision. There was already a trend towards home working, even if only for a couple of days a week. Companies have been trying to save money on commercial properties and will do so, if they can. They have been forced to allow home working by Covid and many of them have found it works for them. Why on earth would they want to change that?

It's always better if there is a mutually agreed resolution rather than a confrontation, which is what Johnson and Cummings seem to want. They want to create divisions between those workers who have to work face-to-face and those who don't have to.

GrannyGravy13

Crossed posts growstuff, agree regarding clinically vulnerable and the practicalities of hot dealing.

There is already a precedent with pregnant women who can't work if there is a case of rubella in the workplace.