Boss forcing us to cancel holiday due to Coronavirus

Tonight flight fr2999 arrived from Amsterdam. It was full.

Fr7125 is due from Lanzarote, again full.

FR6394 from Barcelona, again full.

Ei713 from Tenerife, dunno if it's full.

All the people on those planes are coming from infected Nations. All are interacting with the airline staff, boarding and disembarking staff, baggage handlers, customs and probable coffee shop staff and public transport staff.

If there is a requirement under health and safety for your staff then why are all these staff members not being protected?????????

pablo128

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Tonight flight fr2999 arrived from Amsterdam. It was full.

Fr7125 is due from Lanzarote, again full.

FR6394 from Barcelona, again full.

Ei713 from Tenerife, dunno if it's full.

All the people on those planes are coming from infected Nations. All are interacting with the airline staff, boarding and disembarking staff, baggage handlers, customs and probable coffee shop staff and public transport staff.

If there is a requirement under health and safety for your staff then why are all these staff members not being protected?????????

Why don't you take it up with your superiors? Are you taking any precautions personally?

pablo128

pablo128 wrote: »

Why don't you take it up with your superiors? Are you taking any precautions personally?

Naturally, but I'm not the one placing it at the feet of the companies am I? Love the flipping on this issue.

Read the full thread if you find the time but looking back, it appears you agree with those that claimed your boss has not only the right but a duty to staff regarding viral infections

pablo128

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Naturally, but I'm not the one placing it at the feet of the companies am I? Love the flipping on this issue.

Read the full thread if you find the time but looking back, it appears you agree with those that claimed your boss has not only the right but a duty to staff regarding viral infections

The MD of our company gave us a detailed info pack relating to this issue, and assured us in writing we would be paid if we are out of work. Regardless of that, everyone has to take some personal responsibility for our own and our families safety. I have a young child and my 75 year old mother in law living here. If someone came back into work directly from an affected country, I would refuse to work with them. That's if they were even allowed on the premises.

skooterblue2

pablo128 wrote: »

The MD of our company gave us a detailed info pack relating to this issue, and assured us in writing we would be paid if we are out of work. Regardless of that, everyone has to take some personal responsibility for our own and our families safety. I have a young child and my 75 year old mother in law living here. If someone came back into work directly from an affected country, I would refuse to work with them. That's if they were even allowed on the premises.

God, family, country, company!

10fathoms

Away and sh*te

joeguevara

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Naturally, but I'm not the one placing it at the feet of the companies am I? Love the flipping on this issue.

Read the full thread if you find the time but looking back, it appears you agree with those that claimed your boss has not only the right but a duty to staff regarding viral infections

The crux of the whole thread was prior to the employee going on his personal travel trip, the employer outlined the company policy on self isolation when returning from infected areas.

As there is no prescribed policy, an employer based on facts presented to them can decide on what is an appropriate and reasonable policy. This was done and employee then went on trip.

It was then posited it that there was no legal position that would entitle the employer to impose this self isolation and the employee could just return to work. It was outlined the legal acts and common law which he could rely upon if refused an employee entry to work and subsequently dismissed them.

Now, if a policy wasn’t in place, or if the employee hadn’t told them they were going to the Dam, or if the boss had no evidence that the Dam was a risk then, the duty of care and obligations don’t exist.

It was a defence for the employer to the actions in his Policy rather than something that is a requirement that he must adhere to. That is why different companies can interpret things differently and as long as each interpretation had a reasonable basis, both would be correct.

That is why if a plane full of 250 people coming from Amsterdam, 249 people could return to work in Company A without self isolating because (Choose 1) (a) no policy existed, (b) it wasnt explained or provided to employee (c) employer didn’t believe there was a risk of infection and 1 person from Company B is required to self isolate because it was clearly outlined and explained and boss relied on evidence of infection and death and both would be completely fine.

It may be something that appears strange that two opposite behaviours are both legal but that is the broadness of the Act and risk is not a defined term. Also, because this is as yet a virus that is completely new, any action by an employer if explained would be considered reasonable. As there has been deaths, this is not a high burden.

I hope that explains the position.

jaysus joe

how did you ever let levy sack poch, youre a guru lad!

joeguevara

Deleted User wrote: »

jaysus joe

how did you ever let levy sack poch, youre a guru lad!

That’s what having no football does. Being convinced spurs will win every competition they enter requires complete concentration. When that is out of the way I have time to think about other things.

Get Real

I presume the OPs question from 2 days ago is now irrelevant.

Amsterdam shut down, including bars, restaurants and weed cafes.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/amphtml/dutch-queue-cannabis-coronavirus-closes-cafes-200542469--spt.html?__twitter_impression=true mad queues too.

Anyway, although 500 quid is "lost" it's offset by the spending money that now hasn't been spent.

There's more pressing matters, such as illness or unemployment, than a jaunt to the Dam.

joeguevara

joeguevara wrote: »

The crux of the whole thread was prior to the employee going on his personal travel trip, the employer outlined the company policy on self isolation when returning from infected areas.

As there is no prescribed policy, an employer based on facts presented to them can decide on what is an appropriate and reasonable policy. This was done and employee then went on trip.

It was then posited it that there was no legal position that would entitle the employer to impose this self isolation and the employee could just return to work. It was outlined the legal acts and common law which he could rely upon if refused an employee entry to work and subsequently dismissed them.

Now, if a policy wasn’t in place, or if the employee hadn’t told them they were going to the Dam, or if the boss had no evidence that the Dam was a risk then, the duty of care and obligations don’t exist.

It was a defence for the employer to the actions in his Policy rather than something that is a requirement that he must adhere to. That is why different companies can interpret things differently and as long as each interpretation had a reasonable basis, both would be correct.

That is why if a plane full of 250 people coming from Amsterdam, 249 people could return to work in Company A without self isolating because (Choose 1) (a) no policy existed, (b) it wasnt explained or provided to employee (c) employer didn’t believe there was a risk of infection and 1 person from Company B is required to self isolate because it was clearly outlined and explained and boss relied on evidence of infection and death and both would be completely fine.

It may be something that appears strange that two opposite behaviours are both legal but that is the broadness of the Act and risk is not a defined term. Also, because this is as yet a virus that is completely new, any action by an employer if explained would be considered reasonable. As there has been deaths, this is not a high burden.

I hope that explains the position.

I appreciate the level headed replies but I still belirve you have ignored key aspects:

Unpaid leave can't be forced on someone in full time positions. Of course she may not be but he needs to lay off so she can sign on for the 2 weeks.

Virus infections are not new and the infection exists here.

And you still haven't answered my question, all the staff in the airport. Explain that. H&s very clearly outlined in Gardai, dap, customs, asu, daa,Soma, butlers, burgerking, Dublin bus,............

Your applying a rule to a shop in god knows where but then claiming that it's also reasonable for all the above to continue to work while simultaneously ignoring the staff that could have been partying in templebar all weekend not to mention the thousands landing every single day.

Sorry no, I say again, is your boss liable for all infectious diseases from outside or not? I state no because they are only liable for reasonable efforts and reasonable predicted work place hazards. Providing washing facilities, advise and sanitizer ticks the box, company covered. This boss is pulling this himself probably without any real consideration other than "**** this, she's not infecting me" but of course that's just my opinion.

A virus that exists within the country already doesn't allow you to fixate on one person because they went abroad. It's not an even application just as the drug test can't just Target the holiday maker.

martingriff

py wrote: »

1. Go on holiday, lose 2 weeks pay, maybe lose job, maybe catch coronavirus moving through an airport or two.

2. Stay home, lose 500 euro, don't lose 2 weeks pay, better chance of keeping job, maybe catch coronavirus anyway but probably a lesser chance than visiting airports.

The right option is #2 all day, every day. The boss is giving you options, not forcing you in to anything.

If she loses here job then would be WRC

wpd wrote: »

go on your holiday and enjoy yourself
when you come back turn up for work and if sent home take him to wrc

there is no travel ban on Amsterdam and there is no advice to self isolate for 2 weeks

your boss has no right to tell you how to live your life outside of working hours and to put extra restrictions on
you that law does not

Why would it be WRC all he is doing is sending her home to self isolate. Now the not paying her bit depends on contract

martingriff

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Well, kinda I suppose. He isn't forcing them but he's not giving a reasonable alternative

Not saying she can't take the time off just do not travel so a bit of an alternative. a staycation might be a surprise in 9 month time

martingriff

martingriff wrote: »

Not saying she can't take the time off just do not travel so a bit of an alternative. a staycation might be a surprise in 9 month time

Given enough time stuck at home I think there will be a lot of surprises in 9 months time. ðŸ’ðŸ’

twowheelsonly

cannotlogin wrote: »

The stupidity and selfishness of the original post astounds me.

KathleenGrant wrote: »

The person who opened thread is in the airport. His girlfriend works in a shop.

No he doesn't, that's someone else.
From the OPs' previous posting history he actually works in a Nursing Home !!!!



Albeit his contract is due to expire at the end of March that's still unreal.... A whole new level of Holy Schwitt...

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=112536804

joeguevara

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

No because you have ignored key aspects:

Unpaid leave can't be forced on someone

Virus infections are not new

The infection exists here.

And you still haven't answered my question, all the staff in the airport. Explain that. H&s very clearly outlined in Gardai, dap, customs, asu, daa,Soma, butlers, burgerking, Dublin bus,............

Your applying a rule to a shop in god knows where but then claiming that it's also reasonable for all the above to continue to work while simultaneously ignoring the staff that could have been partying in templebar all weekend.

Sorry no, I say again, is your boss liable for all infectious diseases from outside? I state no because they are only liable for reasonable efforts and reasonable predicted work place hazards.

A virus that exists within the country already doesn't allow you to fixate on one person because they went abroad. It's not an even application.

I have outlined by providing specific reference to provisions in Health and Safety Legislation, the defence that an employer could rely on in the event of refusing to allow an employee return to work after a holiday in Amsterdam without self isolating.

Your argument revolves on ‘sorry no, I say again’ and ‘i state no’. While you are entitled to your opinion, you have completely ignored every reference to the Health and Safety Act which shows why an employer can do this.

I will start with your Temple Bar Point. Bit of a red herring as it wasn’t in the original post and the OP didn’t go to Temple Bar but it is understandable why it was raised. Again it would depend what is in the Policy and what was communicated to employees. If the employer had stated to them that he had determined that it was a likely risk that anyone who went to a nightclub in Dublin with over 100 people, would put other employees at risk and the person would be required to self isolate. If then a person said he was going to Temple Bar but refused to self isolate and would return to work on Monday, the employer could refuse entry and if employee continued to try and enter dismiss. Now, if an employer had no information that this was breached then no issue. So just to reiterate, policy required, communication and knowledge that it was breached.

To go back to Dam travel, all of the above tests were completed so that’s the reason why it would be a defence for ultimate dismissal. It cannot be made more clearer than that.

Infectious diseases do exist as you said but what infectious disease has currently pretty much the entire world on lockdown, people dying and increasing to die, a tsunami of sh1t on the way. So simply jumping up and down and proclaiming that you are right shows a complete understanding of how this works.

Also, the whole crux, and I have said this numerous times is that this is a defence to a dismissal. An employer is the boss and decides who is employed and who isn’t. If he dismisses someone, the person can’t just disregard that and continue to work. They would bring an unfair dismissal case (if had completed the minimum employment period).;the employer would then go through everything I have outlined above as the procedures they had invoked and the ultimate outcome.

I hope you never have to test whether I am right or you are.

leavingirl

jface187 wrote: »

Hey guys.

My Girlfriend and I are supposed to go to Amsterdam at the end of the month.
Her boss just said to her if she goes to Amsterdam, when she comes back she has to self isolate for two weeks. She was told she would not be paid for these two weeks?

Is this legal? We either cancel our holiday and lose 500 euro or she doesn't get paid for two weeks? Were not in any position to take this kinda hit.
She works in a shop by the way.

He is talking bollix. Take him to the labour relations court. Get his statement in writing.

Strumms

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?

The WRC is bound by law, employment law, not by advice, government or otherwise ... that’s my read anyway.

joeguevara

leavingirl wrote: »

He is talking bollix. Take him to the labour relations court. Get his statement in writing.

Just to point out I wouldn’t take advice from someone who didn’t even get the name of the correct forum to bring a complaint. And I don’t think the ‘he is talking boll1x’ defence is the best either.

joeguevara

Strumms wrote: »

The WRC is bound by law, employment law, not by advice, government or otherwise ... that’s my read anyway.

The law that the WRC would rely upon is the Health and Safety Act. The Guidance issued by the Government is what is used by the employer to demonstrate why he acted the way he did. The policy that was communicated to the employee is the glue that holds it all together.

05eaftqbrs9jlh

Conversely, my best buddy is on forced unpaid leave because his boss went to the Alps (won't tell him where but he suspects Italy, as it was a skiing trip) last week and the boss wouldn't work from home this week as a precaution, even though he usually works from home. His wife and child are immunosuppressed. The boss said he was hysterical to even mention the virus.

joeguevara

Thaddeus Jolly Detective wrote: »

Conversely, my best buddy is on forced unpaid leave because his boss went to the Alps (won't tell him where but he suspects Italy, as it was a skiing trip) last week and the boss wouldn't work from home this week as a precaution, even though he usually works from home. His wife and child are immunosuppressed. The boss said he was hysterical to even mention the virus.

If I understand correctly, your friend is self isolating as he believes he is not in a safe work environment, which could lead to an even more serious issue as his family has underlying medical conditions.

Now, there is a missing link here in that he is not categorically sure that the Boss had been in Italy. He raised his concern and the boss declared it hysterical to mention virus.

I would use the following argument:

State that the employer has a duty to provide a safe working environment.
State that the employee raised a reasonable concern which could have potentially devastating effects.
The Boss did not provide a reasonable response to the employee which if he had outlined which country he was in, it may have put employees concerns to bed.
The employee had a belief that he was in an unsafe work environment due to refusal of employer to provide confirmation that there was no risk.
An employee can refuse to work in an unsafe work environment until employer ensures safe.
The employee is entitled to wages while this is ongoing.
If wages are not paid he can bring a case to the WRC.

The above argument will hinge on the reasonable belief that the employer was in an at risk area. Therefore document this and see if it is reasonable.

I would recommend bringing w grievance once back in work. If it is not addressed then the above may be implemented.
Your friend should decide if it is worth the possible issues it could bring by raising this. On the flip side does he want to continue to work for someone who did not address serious concerns.

Best of luck to your friend.

martingriff

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Given enough time stuck at home I think there will be a lot of surprises in 9 months time. ðŸ’ðŸ’

LOL

I was talking with my brother he is in Scotland on WhattsApp last night and he had not repled and he came back to say sorry as the wife had screamed at him as the baby was kicking and she could see it. Has to laugh thinking might be happening to a lot of places in Ireland in a few months

joeguevara

joeguevara wrote: »

I have outlined by providing specific reference to provisions in Health and Safety Legislation, the defence that an employer could rely on in the event of refusing to allow an employee return to work after a holiday in Amsterdam without self isolating.

Your argument revolves on ‘sorry no, I say again’ and ‘i state no’. While you are entitled to your opinion, you have completely ignored every reference to the Health and Safety Act which shows why an employer can do this.

I will start with your Temple Bar Point. Bit of a red herring as it wasn’t in the original post and the OP didn’t go to Temple Bar but it is understandable why it was raised. Again it would depend what is in the Policy and what was communicated to employees. If the employer had stated to them that he had determined that it was a likely risk that anyone who went to a nightclub in Dublin with over 100 people, would put other employees at risk and the person would be required to self isolate. If then a person said he was going to Temple Bar but refused to self isolate and would return to work on Monday, the employer could refuse entry and if employee continued to try and enter dismiss. Now, if an employer had no information that this was breached then no issue. So just to reiterate, policy required, communication and knowledge that it was breached.

To go back to Dam travel, all of the above tests were completed so that’s the reason why it would be a defence for ultimate dismissal. It cannot be made more clearer than that.

Infectious diseases do exist as you said but what infectious disease has currently pretty much the entire world on lockdown, people dying and increasing to die, a tsunami of sh1t on the way. So simply jumping up and down and proclaiming that you are right shows a complete understanding of how this works.

Also, the whole crux, and I have said this numerous times is that this is a defence to a dismissal. An employer is the boss and decides who is employed and who isn’t. If he dismisses someone, the person can’t just disregard that and continue to work. They would bring an unfair dismissal case (if had completed the minimum employment period).;the employer would then go through everything I have outlined above as the procedures they had invoked and the ultimate outcome.

I hope you never have to test whether I am right or you are.

I am well aware of the act. I disagree with your interpretation and use of that act and have pointed out glaring examples of why your view is incorrect.

Your argument is, "the act says so" but have failed to point out how. Have you got any cases to back your view that this is covered? I again point to the airport which continues to have staff dealing with thousands of people coming and going from infected areas. How do when you claim this would leave the company in breach of the law?

joeguevara

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I am well aware of the act. I disagree with your interpretation and use of that act and have pointed out glaring examples of why your view is incorrect.

Your argument is, "the act says so" but have failed to point out how. Have you got any cases to back your view that this is covered? I again point to the airport which continues to have staff dealing with thousands of people coming and going from infected areas. How do when you claim this would leave the company in breach of the law?

Fair play bud. You just refuse to read line by line every post that I have made on this which explains over and over and over why it is as it is. If you don’t want to understand that it is not that the act says so, but how the employer can make his own determination and use it as a defence. Similarly another employer could make a different determination and both would be correct.

If you can’t see that I can’t do anymore. It’s like Arsène Wenger refusing to see anything but their own incorrect opinion.

Strumms

I wouldn’t be going.

That said, too. If an employer asked me, “ok why do you need a holiday”...

Reply... “ I’m taking some time to enjoy rest and recreation with friends and family “. They are entitled to nothing else.

Hector Savage

Will the airport even be open at the end of the month ?