Unwinding lockdown: when can office workers return to the workplace?

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.0.100″ background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” custom_padding=”|||” global_module=”2165″ saved_tabs=”all”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ background_layout=”dark” custom_margin=”0px|||” custom_padding=”0px|||” hover_enabled=”0″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” text_font_size=”27px” text_font=”|700|||||||” sticky_enabled=”0″]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF90aXRsZSIsInNldHRpbmdzIjp7ImJlZm9yZSI6IiIsImFmdGVyIjoiIn19@[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _module_preset=”default” _dynamic_attributes=”content” background_layout=”dark” hover_enabled=”0″ sticky_enabled=”0″]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9kYXRlIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnsiYmVmb3JlIjoiIiwiYWZ0ZXIiOiIiLCJkYXRlX2Zvcm1hdCI6ImRlZmF1bHQiLCJjdXN0b21fZGF0ZV9mb3JtYXQiOiIifX0=@[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.22.3″][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”3.25″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ text_orientation=”justified” use_border_color=”off”]

Unwinding lockdown: when can office workers return to the workplace?

With good progress being made on the Government’s proposed roadmap out of lockdown and the vaccination roll out, we consider when office-based employers can bring workers back to the workplace.

When can office workers return to workplace?

The “stay at home” order was lifted on 29 March 2021.  While that order was in place it was a criminal offence to leave home to go to work unless it was not reasonably possible to work from home.  The fact that the order has been lifted means it is now no longer unlawful to leave home to go to work.

However, the lockdown rules are not the only consideration for employers.  Importantly, employers must comply with the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and the relevant non-statutory guidance.  Here, office-based employers should consult the COVID-19 Secure Guidelines for Offices and Contact Centres (the Guidelines). Employers must take reasonably practicable steps to make the workplace safe for staff and third parties.  The Guidelines provide the framework for achieving that as far as COVID-19 is concerned.

The Guidelines state that office workers should continue to work from home if they can until at least step 4 of the Government’s roadmap out of lockdown.  Step 4 is the stage at which all restrictions on social contact are due to be lifted, and employers may reopen fully.  Step 4 will take place not earlier than 21 June 2021.

Are there any circumstances in which workers may return to the office before Step 4?

There are some exceptions to this guidance.  The Guidelines provide that workers may attend the office before Step 4 is reached if:

  • they cannot work from home;
  • it is appropriate in the light of a worker’s mental or physical health difficulties; or
  • it is appropriate in the light of a worker’s “particularly challenging” home working environment.

The Guidelines do not expand on what counts as “particularly challenging”, but it’s reasonable to conclude that it must be something more than being bored of working from home or wanting to socialise with colleagues.  It might well cover things like:

  • poor internet access;
  • disruption caused by a house move or building works;
  • inability to concentrate due to a noisy environment;
  • cramped working conditions; and/or
  • lack of privacy.

However, the Guidelines go on to say that employers should encourage a mix of home and office-based working where full homeworking is not possible.  In other words, full-time office-working should be avoided for the time being where possible.

What’s the position for workers who are clinically extremely vulnerable or at higher risk?

The shielding guidance for clinically extremely vulnerable people was paused with effect from 1 April 2021.  The Guidelines state that such individuals are advised to work from home where possible but may attend work if they cannot work from home.  Where it’s necessary for such individuals to attend the workplace, employers are advised to consider whether they can take on alternative roles or change their working patterns temporarily to avoid travelling during busy periods.

More generally, employers should consider the risks to certain higher-risk groups as part of their risk assessment.  These groups include:

  • older males;
  • those with a high body mass index;
  • those with certain health conditions such as diabetes; and
  • those from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds.

It’s also worth noting that the clinically extremely vulnerable and those at higher risk remain eligible to be furloughed under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, despite the fact that the shielding guidance has been paused.

What’s the position for workers who are pregnant?

There is special guidance in place for pregnant women which advises that a “precautionary approach” on returning to work is adopted for women who are: (i) 28 weeks pregnant or more; or (ii) pregnant and have underlying health conditions which put them at greater risk of severe illness from COVID-19.  The guidance provides that this precautionary approach may require flexible working from home in a different capacity and that employers should consider how to redeploy these staff and how to maximise the potential for homeworking, wherever possible.  Where this is not possible, affected women may need to be suspended from work on full pay on health and safety grounds

The position is different for pregnant women who are less than 28 weeks pregnant and have no underlying health conditions.  For this group, a risk assessment should be conducted, and affected women should only attend the workplace if the risk assessment says it is safe to do so.  If it is not safe, then suitable alternative work or working arrangements (including working from home) should be offered, or, again, affected women may need to be suspended from work on full pay on health and safety grounds.

Do employers need to update their risk assessments before workers return to work?

Yes.  Before allowing workers to return to the office (whether on or before Step 4 of the roadmap), employers must update their risk assessments to reflect their return to work plans. 

The risk assessment should address a variety of things including the maximum number of people who can attend the office safely at one time, the specific risks to higher risk groups and any adjustments needed for staff with disabilities.

Employers must also consult with staff about their return to work plan, share the risk assessment with them and develop appropriate communication and training materials for workers before they return to the workplace.

What sort of control measures should office-based employers put in place to facilitate the safe return to work?

In terms of the control measures recommended by the Guidelines, these are largely the same as contained in previous iterations and are centred around social distancing, frequent cleaning, good hygiene and adequate ventilation.  However, some key recommendations are worth highlighting:

  • The working day: staggered arrival and departure times should be adopted to reduce crowding into and out of the workplace.
  • Use of fixed teams: the number of people each person has contact with should be reduced where possible by the use of fixed teams.
  • Meetings: in-person internal and external meetings should be avoided, and virtual tools used wherever possible.
  • Hot desking: hot-desking should be avoided. Where it has to be used, desks should be shared by the fewest number of people and workstations and equipment should be cleaned between uses.
  • Face coverings: face coverings are not mandatory for workers in most office settings. They may be used if desired but should not be relied upon as a tool for controlling risk.
  • COVID-19 testing: regular COVID-19 testing will be key to controlling risk in the future. Staff should be consulted before testing is introduced.  Separate guidance recommends that lateral flow tests are performed twice a week for those attending the office.
  • Vaccines: control measures must still be taken even where staff have been vaccinated. Currently, the Guidelines do not talk about either enforcing or encouraging staff vaccination as a means of controlling risk.  If you would like to know about vaccinations and the workforce, you can view our recent webinar on the topic.

BDBF is currently advising many employers and employees on the challenges presented by the coronavirus pandemic, including preparing for the return to the workplace.  If you or your business needs advice on any coronavirus-related matter please contact Amanda Steadman (amandasteadman@bdbf.co.uk) or your usual BDBF contact.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.26.6″][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]


Is it discriminatory to pay a man on shared parental leave less than a woman on adoption leave?

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.0.100″ background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” custom_padding=”|||” global_module=”2165″ saved_tabs=”all”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.7.4″ custom_padding=”50px||||false|false” hover_enabled=”0″ min_height=”66.4px” sticky_enabled=”0″][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” text_font=”|700|||||||” text_font_size=”27px” background_layout=”dark” custom_margin=”0px|||” custom_padding=”0px|||”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF90aXRsZSIsInNldHRpbmdzIjp7ImJlZm9yZSI6IiIsImFmdGVyIjoiIn19@[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” _module_preset=”default” background_layout=”dark”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9kYXRlIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnsiYmVmb3JlIjoiIiwiYWZ0ZXIiOiIiLCJkYXRlX2Zvcm1hdCI6ImRlZmF1bHQiLCJjdXN0b21fZGF0ZV9mb3JtYXQiOiIifX0=@[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.22.3″][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”3.25″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ text_orientation=”justified” use_border_color=”off”]

Is it discriminatory to pay a man on shared parental leave less than a woman on adoption leave?

In Price v Powys County Council, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has determined that it was not directly discriminatory to enhance pay to a female employee on adoption leave and not to enhance statutory pay for a male employee on shared parental leave.

What does the law say? 

Direct sex discrimination occurs where someone treats person A less favourably than person B, because of person A’s sex.  If employees wish to claim direct sex discrimination, they must demonstrate that they have been treated less favourably than a real or hypothetical comparator.  For these purposes, a comparator must be someone of the opposite sex whose circumstances are not materially different to the complainant.  A material difference is one that is significant and relevant.

Where employees adopt a child, they may be entitled to take adoption leave and receive statutory adoption pay.  Primary adopters will be entitled to take up to 52 weeks’ leave, which may begin before or after the adoption placement.  They may also qualify for up to 39 weeks’ statutory adoption pay.   The primary adopter’s partner or spouse may qualify for up to 2 weeks’ paternity leave and pay.

Birth and adoptive parents may be entitled to take shared parental leave and receive statutory shared parental pay.   This will only be available where the birth mother/primary adopter has curtailed the maternity/adoption leave and pay.  Up to 50 weeks’ shared parental leave and 37 weeks’ statutory shared parental pay may be shared between the parents in blocks of their choosing (subject to certain limits).  Shared parental leave may only be taken after the birth or adoption placement has begun.

What happened in this case?

Mr Price worked for Powys County Council.  He applied to take shared parental leave following the birth of his first child.  When he asked how much he would be paid during leave, the Council confirmed that he would receive statutory shared parental pay only. By contrast, the Council enhanced both maternity and adoption pay.  Because of this, Mr Price decided that he would not take shared parental leave after all.

He went on to claim direct sex discrimination, arguing that he should receive the same pay as female colleagues taking other forms of leave. He identified two comparators:

  • a woman on maternity leave receiving enhanced pay; and
  • a woman on adoption leave receiving enhanced pay.

He argued that he was entitled to compare himself to these women because all forms of leave served the same purpose, namely the facilitation of childcare.

What was decided?

In Ali v Capita Customer Management Ltd the Court of Appeal ruled that a man taking shared parental leave was not entitled to compare himself to a woman on maternity leave as their circumstances were materially different.  The Court said that the primary purpose of maternity leave was for the health and safety of the birth mother and not the facilitation of childcare.  Accordingly, the EAT held that Mr Price could not compare himself to a woman on maternity leave.

In relation to the second comparator (the woman on adoption leave), the EAT decided that adoption leave and shared parental leave were similar in that they both had the underlying purpose of facilitating childcare.  However, there were also fundamental differences.  The predominant purpose of adoption leave was to allow adoptive parents to prepare a safe environment for the child and secure the parental bond. As a result, Mr Price and the female comparator’s circumstances were materially different. For that reason, a person taking shared parental leave was not in a directly comparable position with a person of the opposite sex taking adoption leave. Here, the right comparator would have been a woman taking shared parental leave, who would also have been paid statutory shared parental pay only.

What does this mean for employers?

This decision is helpful to employers who enhance pay for adoption leave but not shared parental leave.  That difference in approach will not be directly discriminatory.  However, employers should note that it remains possible that such a claim might succeed if framed as an equal pay claim.  In the case of Hextall v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police, the Court of Appeal held that a man being paid statutory shared parental pay only could have compared himself to a woman being paid enhanced maternity pay for the purposes of an equal pay claim.  However, in that case, the Court said the equal pay claim was bound to fail because claims are excluded where more favourable terms relate to special treatment for women in connection with pregnancy or childbirth.  However, that exclusion would not apply where a man sought to compare himself to a woman taking adoption leave. 

This case also highlights the wider issue that many parents remain reluctant to take shared parental leave because employers tend not to offer enhanced pay.  The charity, Maternity Action, estimates that the take up rate stands at between 3% to 4% among eligible couples.  Indeed, in the last few days, a group of organisations including the TUC, the National Childbirth Trust and the Royal College of Midwives have described the shared parental leave system as a “deeply flawed and chronically failing policy”.  They have called for it to be scrapped and replaced with a period of nom-transferable paid leave for both mothers and fathers.

Price v Powys County Council

If you would like to discuss any issues arising out of this decision please contact Blair Wassman (blairwassman@bdbf.co.uk), Amanda Steadman (amandasteadman@bdbf.co.uk) or your usual BDBF contact.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.26.6″][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]


Was it unfair to dismiss an employee who refused to attend the workplace over concerns about the risk of COVID-19 to his vulnerable children?

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.0.100″ background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” custom_padding=”|||” global_module=”2165″ saved_tabs=”all”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.27.4″ background_layout=”dark” custom_margin=”0px|||” custom_padding=”0px|||”]

Employment Law News

 

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.22.3″][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”3.25″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ text_orientation=”justified” hover_enabled=”0″ use_border_color=”off” sticky_enabled=”0″]

Was it unfair to dismiss an employee who refused to attend the workplace over concerns about the risk of COVID-19 to his vulnerable children?

In Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd an Employment Tribunal decided that it was not automatically unfair to dismiss an employee who refused to attend work because he was worried about catching COVID-19 and giving it to his children.

What does the law say?

In the Employment Rights Act 1996 there are special provisions governing dismissals that are classified as “automatically” unfair.  Importantly, claimants asserting that they have been automatically unfairly dismissed do not need the two years’ service required to bring an “ordinary” unfair dismissal claim.

Individuals can claim automatic unfair dismissal on a number of grounds, including for health and safety-related reasons. This includes protection from dismissal for exercising the right to refuse to attend the workplace and/or to take steps to protect themselves where they reasonably believe there is serious and imminent danger in the workplace.

What happened in this case?

Mr Rodgers worked for Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd.  He worked in a large warehouse where, typically, there would be about five people working at any one time, each with staggered start times.

Following the announcement of the first lockdown on 23 March 2020, the Company told employees that the business would remain open but that it was putting in place measures to ensure the safety of individuals.   A risk assessment had been carried out by an external professional, which made various recommendations relating to social distancing, wiping down surfaces and staggering start/finish/break times.  In fact, the Company already had many of these measures in place prior to the risk assessment.

On 29 March 2020, Mr Rodgers sent a text message to his line manager that said he would not return to work until the lockdown had eased because he had a young child with sickle cell anaemia who could become very ill if he caught the virus.  In addition, he also had a seven-month-old baby who might have had the same health problems (this was not known at the time).

A month later Mr Rodgers was dismissed by the Company.  He brought a claim for automatic unfair dismissal, arguing that he had been dismissed because he had exercised his right to leave the workplace to protect himself from serious and imminent danger.

What was decided?

The Employment Tribunal decided that Mr Rodgers had not been automatically unfairly dismissed.

The Tribunal asked itself whether Mr Rodgers reasonably believed there to be serious and imminent workplace dangers at the time that he had refused to come to work.   It found that Mr Rodgers could not have reasonably believed that there were circumstances of serious and imminent danger.  The Tribunal noted that:

  • There was no evidence that Mr Rodgers had ever raised any health and safety concerns with the Company. His place of work was large, with only a few people working at any one time, meaning it was not difficult to socially distance.A risk assessment had been carried out and there were reminders about handwashing regularly.  Mr Rodgers acknowledged this information had been communicated to him.
  • In Mr Rodgers’ text message to his line manager he did not identify any specific risks within the workplace. Nor did he make any indication that he would return if improvements were made to the workplace. The message suggested that he would stay off work until the national lockdown was over.

Mr Rodgers argued that the pandemic itself created a serious and imminent workplace danger, regardless of the Company’s safety precautions.  Importantly, the Tribunal rejected this, noting that if this were to be the case then any employee could simply down tools on the basis that the virus was circulating in wider society.

What does this mean for employers?

As many employers turn their minds to requiring staff to return to the workplace, they should be conscious that some may be feeling anxious about coming back.  This case demonstrates that by taking steps to ensure that the workplace is safe, employers can minimise the risk of successful automatic unfair dismissal claims on health and safety grounds.

Employers should consider the Government’s COVID-19 secure guidelines for their particular industry, conduct a risk assessment and implement measures to control the risk of COVID-19 at work.  Importantly, employers should consult with staff about risks in the workplace and their return to work plans and share the outcome of the risk assessment with them.  This should help to reassure anxious staff members that they will be safe at work.

However, it’s worth remembering that where employees are particularly worried about the return to work, other employment rights may come into play.  For example, employees suffering from severe anxiety may be disabled, requiring reasonable adjustments to be made (which could include allowing homeworking).  If employees are concerned about returning to the workplace because they live with a vulnerable person, then this could give rise to some form of associative discrimination claim.  The best course of action is to keep the lines of communication open with such employees and seek legal advice where a mutually acceptable resolution cannot be found.

Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd

If you would like to discuss any issues arising out of this decision please contact Hannah Lynn (hannahlynn@bdbf.co.uk), Amanda Steadman (amandasteadman@bdbf.co.uk) or your usual BDBF contact.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.26.6″][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]


BDBF’s guide to the next phase of the furlough scheme

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.0.100″ background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” custom_padding=”|||” global_module=”2165″ saved_tabs=”all”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.27.4″ background_layout=”dark” custom_margin=”0px|||” custom_padding=”0px|||”]

Employment Law News

 

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.22.3″][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”3.25″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ text_orientation=”justified” hover_enabled=”0″ use_border_color=”off” sticky_enabled=”0″]

BDBF’s guide to the next phase of the furlough scheme

This is our detailed guide to next phase of the furlough scheme which runs between 1 May 2021 and 30 September 2021.  This guide was last updated on 28 April 2021.

Please click on the image below to open the PDF guide:

[/et_pb_text][et_pb_image _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _module_preset=”default” title_text=”Guide-to-the-COVID-19-Job-Retention-Scheme-from-1-May-2021-(PDF)-1″ src=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Guide-to-the-COVID-19-Job-Retention-Scheme-from-1-May-2021-PDF-1.jpg” url=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Guide-to-the-COVID-19-Job-Retention-Scheme-from-1-May-2021-PDF.pdf” hover_enabled=”0″ sticky_enabled=”0″ border_width_all=”2px” border_color_all=”#1D7078″ align=”center”][/et_pb_image][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ text_orientation=”justified” hover_enabled=”0″ use_border_color=”off” sticky_enabled=”0″]

BDBF is currently advising many employers and employees on the challenges presented by the coronavirus pandemic, including preparing for the return to the workplace.  If you or your business needs advice on any coronavirus-related matter please contact Amanda Steadman (amandasteadman@bdbf.co.uk) or your usual BDBF contact.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.26.6″][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]