Boss forcing us to cancel holiday due to Coronavirus

KathleenGrant

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

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.

I'm not an employer, I said "if"
Have a post of responsibility in one of my jobs and would stand by a decision on the grounds of affecting others.
Stay safe niner leprauchan

Salary Negotiator

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

**** 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.

Of course the employer can’t force the employee to self isolate, but they can refuse to schedule them for work and as a result not pay them until the employer is satisfied that the employee causes no significant risk to other employees or customers.

skooterblue2

Pkiernan wrote: »

This shop assistant will either go to Amsrerdam and face 2 weeks isolation or not..

Shop Assistant in an Airport? A minimum wage unskilled worker at the start of an economic recession. Easily replaceable. Look after your job and take the hit like everyone else.

skooterblue2

I would suggest a Mod close the post. She has more or less identified where she works and her position. Someone on this thread either knows her manager or Owners is aware of this thread. Close it before she paints a massive target on her back.

KathleenGrant

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I would suggest a Mod close the post. She has more or less identified where she works and her position. Someone on this thread either knows her manager or Owners is aware of this thread. Close it before she paints a massive target on her back.

The person who opened thread is in the airport. His girlfriend works in a shop.
Even if she works in a shop in the airport how has she painted a target on her back?
Is there only one female assistant in one shop in the airport?

skooterblue2

KathleenGrant wrote: »

The person who opened thread is in the airport. His girlfriend works in a shop.
Even if she works in a shop in the airport how has she painted a target on her back?
Is there only one female assistant in one shop in the airport?

There might one who is complaining about not being able to go to Amsterdam. There cant be that many shops in the airport with people complaining about a specific work complaint. Especially if she works "under the tree".

joeguevara

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

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.

Ok.have a look at section 8 1 and 2 which provides the duty of care of employer to provide a safe working environment to all employees and ensure all reasonable steps are taken to prevent any behaviour that is likely to put the safety of employees at risk. Now people who don’t have experience of litigating this section make the assumption that their behaviour doesn’t meet the standard of likely to endanger the other employees safety but ignore the actual meaning of likely to put at risk. Have a look at this website which shows people dying in Netherlands and the amount of people infected and deceased. https://www.rivm.nl/en/news/current-information-about-novel-coronavirus-covid-19. Also employees are working from home so the risk of infection is reasonable to assume. The fact that every EU country has issued guidance not to do any non essential foreign travel adds to this. Employer can’t restrict you from travelling but has a legal obligation to ensure you are safe to return so that other people aren’t put at risk.

Have a look at section 13 of the same act which imposes those same obligations on employees.

Every guidance cites the same. Every lawfirm who practice employment law cites the same. You state that we are not in a state of emergency in Ireland but when the Public Health emergency team announces the death of a second person in Ireland from the virus in the last hour, your employer can determine himself what is reasonable especially as he has stated the policy.

If you think that those provisions don’t apply and you have the right to foreign travel in a country where it’s own government is locking its citizens down then go for it. Have a weekend in Amsterdam. Try to go to work where more than likely you will be escorted off premises and dismissed for breaches of above. Then try and bring a case to WRC and watch the case being argued. How will you argue against an employer who had a policy, that was disclosed in advance, or the reasonable belief of the employer that a tourist in a country that is experiencing high infections and deaths puts his employees at risk.

I do believe though that the above will be moot very soon as businesses will be ordered to shut. But be prepared for a short conclusion in a case if you think you know more,

joeguevara

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

**** 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.

Personal travel cannot be prohibited but the employer as prescribed in legislation not only has a right but a legal obligation to protect his employees. If he breaches that obligation can be fined up to 3mil or face to years in jail. The fact that it was explained how this is interpreted and what expectations were, the; it is not up to the employee to disregard. It is not a matter of putting it in a contract (which would include compliance with all health and safety legislation) it is enshrined in law.

pablo128

One way of solving this would be for the employer to have a doctor waiting for the employer on their first day back from Amsterdam. A quick drug test and out the door. And good luck getting another job afterwards.

Tordelback

This is a silly thread now, overtaken by grim reality.

No-one will be going on holiday to Amsterdam at the end of the month, or anywhere else, and it's unlikely there'd be a non-critical job to come back to to self-isolate from.

Projected 30,000 infections (1,000 identified x30 unidentified is the accepted rate) in Ireland by the end of March, jeebus knows how many in Holland, all tourist amenities will be closed, public transport restricted, suitable hotels may be commandeered as overflow hospitals: our holidays are gone and they aren't coming back any time soon.

We're in a world war now, one with casualty numbers most people alive in the West will never have seen, and we'll be lucky if they let us out for a walk, never mind a citybreak.

joeguevara

joeguevara wrote: »

Personal travel cannot be prohibited but the employer as prescribed in legislation not only has a right but a legal obligation to protect his employees. If he breaches that obligation can be fined up to 3mil or face to years in jail. The fact that it was explained how this is interpreted and what expectations were, the; it is not up to the employee to disregard. It is not a matter of putting it in a contract (which would include compliance with all health and safety legislation) it is enshrined in law.

Reasonable steps to protect against certain issues. At no stage in any legislation have you or anyone else showed where this covers traveling between two countries that both have the same illness.

It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest your boss has an obligation to protect staff from a common virus. Ludicrous!

Can you or anyone else point to a case that this has happened and the boss proven right or wrong?

Let me ask a very simple question, if my boss has such an obligation, how is the airport still open? How are the shops, cafes and food premises all still open when there's thousands of people flowing through the place from infected countries every single day? What about the airlines that are sending their staff to infected countries? Hmmmmm? Aren't those bosses now in breach according to you?

I won't hold my breath for those bosses to be hauled up!

And again, the op asked about the present situation in terms of the bosses powers. Not what the government may do, not how the situation will look in 3 weeks. That's all just thrown in to justify positions.

Tordelback

Tordelback wrote: »

This is a silly thread now, overtaken by grim reality.

No-one will be going on holiday to Amsterdam at the end of the month, or anywhere else, and it's unlikely there'd be a non-critical job to come back to to self-isolate from.

Projected 30,000 infections (1,000 identified x30 unidentified is the accepted rate) in Ireland by the end of March, jeebus knows how many in Holland, all tourist amenities will be closed, public transport restricted, suitable hotels may be commandeered as overflow hospitals: our holidays are gone and they aren't coming back any time soon.

We're in a world war now, one with casualty numbers most people alive in the West will never have seen, and we'll be lucky if they let us out for a walk, never mind a citybreak.

Probable but that's better here nor there regarding the op

pablo128

pablo128 wrote: »

One way of solving this would be for the employer to have a doctor waiting for the employer on their first day back from Amsterdam. A quick drug test and out the door. And good luck getting another job afterwards.

Tested for what drug? Presuming your contract allows drug testing in the first place. If it's legal in Holland, you can do it provided you aren't intoxicated arriving to work.

Good luck getting a doctor to sign that off

Shefwedfan

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Tested for what drug? Presuming your contract allows drug testing in the first place. If it's legal in Holland, you can do it provided you aren't intoxicated arriving to work.

Good luck getting a doctor to sign that off

I think you will be here for a months trying to argue you are right when you know your not


Best to leave it and move on.

pablo128

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Tested for what drug? Presuming your contract allows drug testing in the first place. If it's legal in Holland, you can do it provided you aren't intoxicated arriving to work.

Good luck getting a doctor to sign that off

It's in a lot of contracts now, including mine. Cannabis stays in your system for 28 days. Your the very person saying 'legally this' and 'legally that'. Well legally, turn up in work with drugs in your system and get caught, you're out the door.

Shefwedfan

pablo128 wrote: »

It's in a lot of contracts now, including mine. Cannabis stays in your system for 28 days. Your the very person saying 'legally this' and 'legally that'. Well legally, turn up in work with drugs in your system and get caught, you're out the door.

Majority of companies now have drug testing in contract, plus the ability to test when they want

Dont worry, if they want to fire you they can, especially if going to Amsterdam for the weekend

NSAman

Jesus, you can fix a lot in life, but this thread proves one thing again... you cannot fix dumb!

Shefwedfan

NSAman wrote: »

Jesus, you can fix a lot in life, but this thread proves one thing again... you cannot fix dumb!

But but but.....its 500 euro.....

Die Hard 2019

pablo128 wrote: »

It's in a lot of contracts now, including mine. Cannabis stays in your system for 28 days. Your the very person saying 'legally this' and 'legally that'. Well legally, turn up in work with drugs in your system and get caught, you're out the door.

Do you work for the Americans ?

pablo128

Die Hard 2019 wrote: »

Do you work for the Americans ?

I work for a 100% Irish owned company. Why do you ask?

skooterblue2

Shefwedfan wrote: »

But but but.....its 500 euro.....

By the time this is done, a lot of people are going to be out a lot more than €500

skooterblue2

Die Hard 2019 wrote: »

Do you work for the Americans ?

Not just americans, most MNC's are testing for drugs. They like to keep you in focus and step outside of that line and they will easily dismiss you.

joeguevara

pablo128 wrote: »

It's in a lot of contracts now, including mine. Cannabis stays in your system for 28 days. Your the very person saying 'legally this' and 'legally that'. Well legally, turn up in work with drugs in your system and get caught, you're out the door.

While testing positive for illegal or controlled substances and indeed legal ones may be grounds for dismissal, you are not entirely right in your assertion.

Your employer may decide to test employees for drugs. To do this, however, they need the agreement of employees. This should normally be given where your employer has grounds for testing you under a full contractual occupational health and safety policy.

The policy should be set out in your contract of employment or in the company handbook. Your employer should limit testing to the employees that need to be tested to deal with the risk.

If your employer wants to carry out random tests of these employees, bear in mind that the tests should be genuinely random. It's potentially discriminatory to single out particular employees for testing unless this is justified by the nature of their jobs.

If a drugs test for an employee returning from a personal trip away just happened, especially when there is an obvious reason for it, the employer would realistically be open to a case of singling out an employee when a grievance existed.

This is where employers without proper knowledge of the legislation may reverse a legitimate case into a windfall for an employee. Short circuiting appropriate procedures is one of the main reasons employers pay out damages to employees when they originally had a slam dunk case.

pablo128

joeguevara wrote: »

While testing positive for illegal or controlled substances and indeed legal ones may be grounds for dismissal, you are not entirely right in your assertion.

Your employer may decide to test employees for drugs. To do this, however, they need the agreement of employees. This should normally be given where your employer has grounds for testing you under a full contractual occupational health and safety policy.

The policy should be set out in your contract of employment or in the company handbook. Your employer should limit testing to the employees that need to be tested to deal with the risk.

If your employer wants to carry out random tests of these employees, bear in mind that the tests should be genuinely random. It's potentially discriminatory to single out particular employees for testing unless this is justified by the nature of their jobs.

If a drugs test for an employee returning from a personal trip away just happened, especially when there is an obvious reason for it, the employer would realistically be open to a case of singling out an employee when a grievance existed.

This is where employers without proper knowledge of the legislation may reverse a legitimate case into a windfall for an employee. Short circuiting appropriate procedures is one of the main reasons employers pay out damages to employees when they originally had a slam dunk case.

I've seen how it works in practice. Usually 5 employees in our company are selected at 'random' for a drug test. If you fail you are shown the door.

Shefwedfan

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I think you will be here for a months trying to argue you are right when you know your not


Best to leave it and move on.

Well as someone else pointed out, I am not

pablo128

pablo128 wrote: »

It's in a lot of contracts now, including mine. Cannabis stays in your system for 28 days. Your the very person saying 'legally this' and 'legally that'. Well legally, turn up in work with drugs in your system and get caught, you're out the door.

Oh no, imagine relying on the law instead of random comments? I must be insane!

Again, IF your company has this policy, IF it can be shown to be genuinely random and IF it can be shown that it's not malicious which would be hard in this case. I would doubt that a small shop has such a policy to begin with.

dartboardio

Correct your title.

No one is forcing you to cancel your holiday.

All they said is you must self isolate upon return, which is perfectly fine.

Go, or don't, but it's not the bosses fault

joeguevara

pablo128 wrote: »

I've seen how it works in practice. Usually 5 employees in our company are selected at 'random' for a drug test. If you fail you are shown the door.

Fair enough but still not as easy as that. The fact that it is clear that if the employee turned up for work after clearly being told it would be breach of a policy of self isolation the employer wanted a means of dismissing the employee or ensuring that they didn’t come on the premises. Now besides the fact that they have a purely legitimate case of refusing them entry, having random employees just happen to be selected for a drugs test at the same time as the employee is due to come in for work does not mask the clear selection and real reason for the test. Secondly the employer would (if employee had a good barrister) be required to provide evidence of how the ‘random sample’ was selected. Drug testing in the workplace is usually carried out by an external agency, so if the drug test just happened to be organised after the direction of self isolation was believed to be ignored, then that would make the randomness as unbelievable as could be.

Also, in this particular case, the chances of laboratories being available at short notice is never going to happen and no laboratory would allow a member of their staff to knowingly come into contact with an at risk person. Finally, it would be a breach of the health and safety act if the employer knowingly put a person who they have contracted with in risk of infection and would be the exact reason he didn’t want the employee on the premises in the first place. So what seemed like an easy way of restricting entry could mean a number of claims against the employer.

contrary_devil

I'm gobsmacked by what the op posted originally and by some of the posts backing him up. There are some people in this country so thoughtless and full of their own self importance that they have no care for others. Are some people so moronically thick that they think that the government and health experts are doing what they are just for giggles? All this is for the greater good of the population and the op is worried about €500 ffs. Many others stand to loose multiples of that, some will be very ill and others loose their lives (2 so far at the time of writing).
The people in this country are supposedly well educated but there's a severe shortage of cop on.
Tell you what op go to Amsterdam and do us all a favour, stay there.
For the snowflakes out there NO I'm not going to apologise and I don't give one iota of care that I've upset your evening.

skooterblue2

contrary_devil wrote: »

. There are some people in this country so thoughtless and full of their own self importance that they have no care for others. Are some people so moronically thick that they think that the government and health experts are doing what they are just for giggles? All this is for the greater good of the population and the op is worried about €500 ffs. Many others stand to loose multiples of that, some will be very ill and others loose their lives (2 so far at the time of writing).

It is only when bodies drop in big numbers which they will and the OP and his girlfriend lose a few senior/junior family members that they realise how light weight their concerns about missing out on a weekend in Amsterdam is to smoke some weed.

I have 6 family members who are 80 plus and 1 vulnerable who I have serious doubts that will reach the other side of this crisis. There wont be enough ventilators for everyone, there wont be ICU beds either, the 7 foolish virgins who didnt prepare will or who said "we will sesh through this crisis" will suffer. and you are worried about a little weed?