Boss forcing us to cancel holiday due to Coronavirus

KathleenGrant

Car99 wrote: »

Out of interest at what level of covid 19 in the destination country do people think it's still ok to travel. At the moment Ireland has 26 cases of covid19 per million of population while the uk has 17 cases per million of population . Statistically UK has less infection than Ireland so is travel to there socially acceptable?

Sigh.

Car99

KathleenGrant wrote: »

Sigh.

Why the sigh what's acceptable to you?

whisky_galore

Her co workers won't be rolling out the red carpet on her return, sure as sh1t.

Shefwedfan

Car99 wrote: »

Why the sigh what's acceptable to you?

I would guess the sigh is because it’s a stupid question

KathleenGrant

Car99 wrote: »

Why the sigh what's acceptable to you?

Questions of "what's the most I can get away with and still feel ok about it." If it's necessary, go. If it's not, why would you?

appledrop

Car99 wrote: »

Out of interest at what level of covid 19 in the destination country do people think it's still ok to travel. At the moment Ireland has 26 cases of covid19 per million of population while the uk has 17 cases per million of population . Statistically UK has less infection than Ireland so is travel to there socially acceptable?

Come on now we all know that the uk are the only country on the world not taking this seriously. Do you really think that's the true figure for uk? They are not testing enough people + 70, 000 at Cheltenham will mean a lot were infected.

Dav010

Dav010 wrote: »

The WRC would adjudicate against employers for following advice given by the Dept of Health, the HSE etc ? What makes you so sure of this? Would you be at all concerned that employers would refuse to follow that Government advice if there was good reason to believe they could be heavily penalised by the WRC for doing precisely what the Government advised?

What advise? The hse didn't advise companies to refuse to allow staff work because they were abroad. They certainly advised the staff member isolating and the company being ok with that, that's not what's suggested here.

But yes, I believe they would because again, that pesky thing called the law keeps popping up.

And then no, because there is no obligation on a company to follow the suggestions that have been issued.

You are confusing advise and best practice with legal requirements. The wrc at best, could minimise the breach of employment rights by weighing the concern for other staff. That's allowed for.

I will say it again, at this moment in time, your boss cannot fire you for not self isolating.

Maybe it's a not moral or fair to travel and then swan back into work, but it's legal. I know this for a fact and confirmed it with my own hrm department as I myself may need to travel for family reasons and the reply I got was "self isolation is a hse recommendation, not an occupational requirement".

Just to add via edit, I'm well aware that the boss could make up another reason to cover the 2 weeks of no work or another reason and just fire her.

dulpit

Car99 wrote: »

Out of interest at what level of covid 19 in the destination country do people think it's still ok to travel. At the moment Ireland has 26 cases of covid19 per million of population while the uk has 17 cases per million of population . Statistically UK has less infection than Ireland so is travel to there socially acceptable?

No. Stay put and avoid any travel anywhere. Don't forget that the infection rate being reported is the diagnosed infection rate, many more will have it...

As of now the only socially accepted travel abroad I can see is either people returning home or extremely important type work (eg medical aid, food transportation etc). Anything else can wait

KathleenGrant

KathleenGrant wrote: »

Also the person in question works in a shop. General public at risk also. Person will be touching surfaces others will have to.

Again, confusing morals with legal requirements. I will interact with hundreds, if not thousands of people today. I will still need to be in work.

Shefwedfan

Darc19 wrote: »

Remember, the op posted three days ago.

His gf probably had the conversation with her employer last Tuesday or Wednesday when it was no where near as serious as it became.

So if you read it in the context of what was known earlier in the week, it's a valid question.


Obviously in light of Thursday's announcement and the fact that it is spreading like wildfire around Europe, the last place the op and his gf will want to be is Amsterdam.

Chances are a travel ban will be announced and flights refunded or changeable

Over two week ago I was cancelling all travel, my company was cancelling events and all travel as well

around the time the Ireland Italy match got cancelled the responsible people took action

Shefwedfan

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Again, confusing morals with legal requirements. I will interact with hundreds, if not thousands of people today. I will still need to be in work.

I do like boards when people try to be as difficult as possible just to make a point

Are you telling me that in 2 weeks time with the rate of infection, if you travelled that a responsible company would let you walk back in and serve thousand of people?

cannotlogin

The stupidity and selfishness of the original post astounds me.

theteal

OK OP, others opinions have been well aired at this stage.
The obvious answer is to stay put.

Now I do have a query. How is the trip booked? If it's a Ryanair flight, you can move to a different date in the future for no charge. Is there a cancellation policy on the accommodation? This has escalated to a point now where I would be surprised if it will cost you anything.

Shefwedfan

theteal wrote: »

OK OP, others opinions have been well aired at this stage.
The obvious answer is to stay put.

Now I do have a query. How is the trip booked? If it's a Ryanair flight, you can move to a different date in the future for no charge. Is there a cancellation policy on the accommodation? This has escalated to a point now where I would be surprised if it will cost you anything.

I asked all this

If 500 euro that has to include hotel who I am sure will move

Also do they have travel insurance? If not then that was silly wasn’t it

skooterblue2

cannotlogin wrote: »

The stupidity and selfishness of the original post astounds me.

All this fuss for a bag of weed in Amsterdam for a weekend? There are going to be bodies going to be piled up high and collected in a few weeks for the crematorium or mass graves.

Rikand

A2LUE42 wrote: »

Clown working with my Brother in law didn't bother to tell anyone he was in Italy for two weeks and just went back to work without saying anything. He is now showing symptoms and is being tested and they are all concerned about the vunerable people in their lives that they are in daily contact with, such as elderly parents. Some people are just idiots.

Did nobody in work notice he was missing for 2 weeks ? What a job!

LaLa2004

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I

Also do they have travel insurance? If not then that was silly wasn’t it

Most travel insurance policies do not cover travel disruption.

skooterblue2

This thread is almost as bad and self entitled as that Radiographer on the Ant and Dec the big TakeAway show last night travelling and in a life studio Audience and not a Scooby Doo about the situation outside.

LillySV

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I do like boards when people try to be as difficult as possible just to make a point

Are you telling me that in 2 weeks time with the rate of infection, if you travelled that a responsible company would let you walk back in and serve thousand of people?

As it stands, civil service are letting people come back in to work from hols without self isolation... it’s a friggin disgrace! They advise u to stay out only if been with confirmed case!! heard of a guy coming back from cheltenham the other day and walking back into a tiny room with 6 other employees.... from what I picked up...they got out of the room and went elsewhere... and rightly so... why do they have to deal with bigger risk of catching it from a selfish asshole

joeguevara

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Care to show me the legal right to lay someone off because they took a holiday? Love to see it.

No legal system will debate it? Strange systems you are used to. the Irish legal system allows all matters to be debated and considered.

And when I said travel, I said he could of he chose because that's his legal right. Did you see the part where I suggested he should maybe listen to people advise and make the correct moral decision?

So yes, I am pretty bright. I know the legal position here for starters and I know without a law being amended, the virus doesn't change a workers legal protection.

As for getting it, it's a virus, if I get it I get it. In fact I'm almost guaranteed considering the place I work and job I do. I'll isolate, I'll feel like **** and then I will get better just as all middle aged healthy people are.

I however, can't take holidays or stop going to work like yourself so I dunno really if I can be called selfish under the circumstances.

There are many legal protections and obligations that you mightn’t have considered before you came to your conclusion. Firstly and most importantly their duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act (HASAW) as amended and associated legislation to protect the health, safety and welfare at work of their workforce, as well as others who may be affected by their operation.

Secondlytheir common law duty to take reasonable care for the health and safety of their workforce.


Thirdly, the express and implied terms of contracts of employment and other contracts for the personal performance of work or services, including the implied duty of trust and confidencethe duty under the Equality Act.

A policy whether it is written down or not is in place as he has expressly told the OP of his expectations if they go to a country where the virus is present. So it cannot be argued that they weren’t aware.

Hollands infections have increased significantly to allow an employer to make a reasonable decision that it requires self isolating. guidance on self-isolation is advisory rather than mandatory. However, in view of their legal obligations to protect the health of their workforce, employers would be well advised to introduce rules, or issue instructions, making it clear that that any employee falling within one of the groups advised by the HSE or if reasonable that there is risk to self-isolate should refrain from attending work.

If the contract of employment includes a garden leave clause, this may provide the contractual basis for an instruction to stay at home. In other cases, the employer may have no express contractual power to require an employee to refrain from attending work. But in the highly unusual circumstances of the outbreak of COVID-19 the implied duty of trust and confidence is likely to be regarded as giving an employer the right to issue an instruction to that effect.

An employee who refuses to comply with a reasonable instruction to remain at home would breach their own duty of trust and confidence and their personal duty under Health and safety actto take care of their own health and safety and the health and safety of others who may be affected by their actions at work.

So no law has to change. Employer owes duty of care to ensure safe workplaces for all employees. This has been notified. If breached then they can dismiss.

Finally what is expectation if do go and refuse to isolate. Go to work and say nothing. If dismissal comes what next. Take a case to WRC. How will it look when employer says I wanted to protect the lives of employees. I gave a reasonable instruction and it was ignored. I did what I did in a state of emergency. I explained it and it was ignored. And your response was I wanted to go to Amsterdam.

Is that a legal position that you had considered?

KathleenGrant

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Again, confusing morals with legal requirements. I will interact with hundreds, if not thousands of people today. I will still need to be in work.

I am not an employer but if I was I would take my chances on this stance. The employer is giving prior notice as a warning. Weeks in advance. They are not springing it on the emplyee.

Where do you work that you will be in contact with thousands? Face to face? If so, stay safe.

LillySV

KathleenGrant wrote: »

I am not an employer but if I was I would take my chances on this stance. The employer is giving prior notice as a warning. Weeks in advance. They are not springing it on the emplyee.

Where do you work that you will be in contact with thousands? Face to face? If so, stay safe.

I know my wife’s employer has placed a company ban on travel ... if someone does travel then they most stay at home for two weeks ...her company are fairly savvy so sure they had appropriate legal advise before doing so

I had heard boston scientific has done the same but heard this third hand so not 100% sure if true ?

Salary Negotiator

LillySV wrote: »

I know my wife’s employer has placed a company ban on travel ... if someone does travel then they most stay at home for two weeks ...her company are fairly savvy so sure they had appropriate legal advise before doing so

I had heard boston scientific has done the same but heard this third hand so not 100% sure if true ?

I work for a medical device company and they banned all travel a week before the schools closed.

If people actually think an employer will suffer any repercussions for asking an employee to self isolate after travelling then they are really underestimating the seriousness of this.

LillySV

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

I work for a medical device company and they banned all travel a week before the schools closed.

If people actually think an employer will suffer any repercussions for asking an employee to self isolate after travelling then they are really underestimating the seriousness of this.

Good to see companies making these sensible decisions

joeguevara

joeguevara wrote: »

There are many legal protections and obligations that you mightn’t have considered before you came to your conclusion. Firstly and most importantly their duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act (HASAW) as amended and associated legislation to protect the health, safety and welfare at work of their workforce, as well as others who may be affected by their operation.

Secondlytheir common law duty to take reasonable care for the health and safety of their workforce.


Thirdly, the express and implied terms of contracts of employment and other contracts for the personal performance of work or services, including the implied duty of trust and confidencethe duty under the Equality Act.

A policy whether it is written down or not is in place as he has expressly told the OP of his expectations if they go to a country where the virus is present. So it cannot be argued that they weren’t aware.

Hollands infections have increased significantly to allow an employer to make a reasonable decision that it requires self isolating. guidance on self-isolation is advisory rather than mandatory. However, in view of their legal obligations to protect the health of their workforce, employers would be well advised to introduce rules, or issue instructions, making it clear that that any employee falling within one of the groups advised by the HSE or if reasonable that there is risk to self-isolate should refrain from attending work.

If the contract of employment includes a garden leave clause, this may provide the contractual basis for an instruction to stay at home. In other cases, the employer may have no express contractual power to require an employee to refrain from attending work. But in the highly unusual circumstances of the outbreak of COVID-19 the implied duty of trust and confidence is likely to be regarded as giving an employer the right to issue an instruction to that effect.

An employee who refuses to comply with a reasonable instruction to remain at home would breach their own duty of trust and confidence and their personal duty under Health and safety actto take care of their own health and safety and the health and safety of others who may be affected by their actions at work.

So no law has to change. Employer owes duty of care to ensure safe workplaces for all employees. This has been notified. If breached then they can dismiss.

Finally what is expectation if do go and refuse to isolate. Go to work and say nothing. If dismissal comes what next. Take a case to WRC. How will it look when employer says I wanted to protect the lives of employees. I gave a reasonable instruction and it was ignored. I did what I did in a state of emergency. I explained it and it was ignored. And your response was I wanted to go to Amsterdam.

Is that a legal position that you had considered?

The health and safety at work aspect. Can you point to a section that mentions outside infections in general? There's so so many illnesses out there. Are you suggesting that your boss has a duty of care against all infectious diseases? Remember now, were looking at a person that has not been diagnosed with anything, merely traveled to a country that has the same virus as this country. We're not Corona free. Does it apply to all viruses?

Common law, not really as I'm unaware of any existing situation that the courts or days of past have dealt with not covered by existing law. Can you point to anything?

I'm going to disregard your gardening leave and all contract aspects. Gardening leave is paid leave. The op is talking about unpaid. The girl also works in a shop. I would suggest the terms of employment are pretty standard.

In regards the person's own responsibility, the act does not mention anything about illness and clearly states the actions 'at work' are what counts in creating dangers.

The op could well get Corona while shopping, so could the boss.

Does the boss now have both permission and a responsibility to ban all staff that may come into contact with an illness? How far are we pushing this? Flu? Ebola? Sars? Mers? Rabies? And so on.

What about customers? Couldn't they have come from abroad? Is he breaching his responsibilities by even staying open to the public?

Also, we aren't in a state of emergency and it's not the bosses call to declare one. If he's that concerned, close the shop and protect all his staff from the customers as well as each other.

Nope, I don't buy it. I don't personally believe that traveling to another country and 'maybe' contracting a virus that is already present in this country fits the bill as it stands when we are talking about a shop open to the general public.

KathleenGrant

KathleenGrant wrote: »

I am not an employer but if I was I would take my chances on this stance. The employer is giving prior notice as a warning. Weeks in advance. They are not springing it on the emplyee.

Where do you work that you will be in contact with thousands? Face to face? If so, stay safe.

Take your chance if you want, your the boss.

I work in Dublin airport. I consider my chances of getting Corona greater as a result of staying in work than if I was to actually go abroad.

Salary Negotiator

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

I work for a medical device company and they banned all travel a week before the schools closed.

If people actually think an employer will suffer any repercussions for asking an employee to self isolate after travelling then they are really underestimating the seriousness of this.

**** me can anyone read? Not asking, telling and refusing them work and pay. It is not the same and it's an important difference.

The virus, as bad as everyone thinks, has not as of now, changed employment law and rights.

Your boss cannot willy nilly dictate how you spend your free time and threaten sanctions if you spend that time as you want. There's certain exceptions to this but they are in law and contracts in advance. They can't just be thrown in later.

LillySV

LillySV wrote: »

As it stands, civil service are letting people come back in to work from hols without self isolation... it’s a friggin disgrace! They advise u to stay out only if been with confirmed case!! heard of a guy coming back from cheltenham the other day and walking back into a tiny room with 6 other employees.... from what I picked up...they got out of the room and went elsewhere... and rightly so... why do they have to deal with bigger risk of catching it from a selfish asshole

If this is true, and it is, its proof that health and safety does not mandate isolation as I said.

boring accountant

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's really up to health agencies and governments to decide where you should and shouldn't travel - not random shop owners.

As it stands there is nothing official to say don't go, that may well change by the time you are going or it may not, if it does, you'll get your money back. That's really all that you need to be concerned about. Your boss doesn't get to tell you where you can go on holidays!

He also only knows what you tell him by the way!

The only reason the government hasn’t stopped flights yet is because some people need to use them to get home.

The flights are not remaining open so selfish ***** can go on holidays.

Pkiernan

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

If this is true, and it is, its proof that health and safety does not mandate isolation as I said.

Give it a rest please.

Your reduction-to-absurdity arguments are very tiring, and add absolutely no value.

This shop assistant will either go to Amsrerdam and face 2 weeks isolation or not. That's it.
She wont be going to the WRC.