Coronavirus Sick Leave

randomrb

Theoretical situation;

Your employer does not pay fr sick leave, you return from a risk area displaying flu like symptoms.

You feel fine to work and can't afford to miss 2 weeks wages so you try to go in anyway.

Q 1. Can your employer force you to take sick leave?
Q 2. If it is at the employers request do they have to pay you?

C3PO

The employer can temporarily lay you off

runawaybishop

randomrb wrote: »

Theoretical situation;

Your employer does not pay fr sick leave, you return from a risk area displaying flu like symptoms.

You feel fine to work and can't afford to miss 2 weeks wages so you try to go in anyway.

Q 1. Can your employer force you to take sick leave?
Q 2. If it is at the employers request do they have to pay you?

Yes they can force you, no they do not have to pay unless it is in your contract.

28064212

C3PO wrote: »

The employer can temporarily lay you off

No they can't. Temporary layoffs, like regular layoffs, cover situations where the employer is unable to provide work for you. It cannot be used for any other purposes

runawaybishop

28064212 wrote: »

No they can't. Temporary layoffs, like regular layoffs, cover situations where the employer is unable to provide work for you. It cannot be used for any other purposes

It can be used if you have no supply chain or not enough staff to provide a service.

The DSP are gearing up for an influx of short-time work support and JB claims.

skallywag

Someone returning from a high risk area, with flu like symptoms, attempting to go into work.

To be honest with you I think that there would be bigger question in play other than the salary question. You would have to question said person's overall cop-on / sanity ...

28064212

runawaybishop wrote: »

It can be used if you have no supply chain or not enough staff to provide a service.

Which is not the situation described in the OP

runawaybishop

28064212 wrote: »

Which is not the situation described in the OP

I wasn't responding to the op there.

Peregrinus

skallywag wrote: »

Someone returning from a high risk area, with flu like symptoms, attempting to go into work.

To be honest with you I think that there would be bigger question in play other than the salary question. You would have to question said person's overall cop-on / sanity ...

Surely you would be questioning the cop-on or sanity of an employer who doesn't offer sick pay in these circumstances? If the worker comes in because that's the only way he can put food on the table for his kids . . .

DaraDali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Surely you would be questioning the cop-on or sanity of an employer who doesn't offer sick pay in these circumstances? If the worker comes in because that's the only way he can put food on the table for his kids . . .

Surely you would question an employee that would go to a high risk area like italy and is only worried about his two weeks pay?

Mrs OBumble

Peregrinus wrote: »

Surely you would be questioning the cop-on or sanity of an employer who doesn't offer sick pay in these circumstances? If the worker comes in because that's the only way he can put food on the table for his kids . . .

Mist employers don't offer sick pay to most workers.

Yes multi nationalscdo to articulate, high skilled people. But regular workers, no.

If someone doesn't have enough saving to live on for three months, they should not be doing ski trips to Italy.

drunkmonkey

Are you ok there Mrs O'Bumble, you seem a little unwell...

randomrb

DaraDali wrote: »

Surely you would question an employee that would go to a high risk area like italy and is only worried about his two weeks pay?

Cork University hospital is now probably counted as a risk area, this isn't limited to foreign trips. I think people are underestimating how much this could impact lower wage individuals or those under financial pressure.

Throw on top of all this the fact that it seems inevitable that schools will close and parents will need to pay fro childcare which may or may not be open or have to takentime off work to mind them.

randomrb

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/coronavirus/pay-for-workers-who-self-isolate-to-be-examined-by-government-officials-1.4195052

Lux23

skallywag wrote: »

Someone returning from a high risk area, with flu like symptoms, attempting to go into work.

To be honest with you I think that there would be bigger question in play other than the salary question. You would have to question said person's overall cop-on / sanity ...

An awful lot of people couldn't afford to miss two weeks work unpaid, I certainly couldn't have coped a few years ago if I missed half a month's pay.

skallywag

Lux23 wrote: »

An awful lot of people couldn't afford to miss two weeks work unpaid, I certainly couldn't have coped a few years ago if I missed half a month's pay.

I take your point, and I guess I should have been more specific in my response.

Calling them up / sending an email? Sure, nobody will have an issue there.

But actually turning up in person at the workplace, while having symptoms, and having just returned from a high risk area? That would be frankly beyond belief, in my opinion at least, in the current climate.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Surely you would be questioning the cop-on or sanity of an employer who doesn't offer sick pay in these circumstances? If the worker comes in because that's the only way he can put food on the table for his kids . . .

I don’t think an employer should be penalised for an employees annual leave choices. Different situation if you went there on work related matter. Let’s see if the government provides for illness benefit in cases where employees are off work due to concerns over illness rather than actual illness. It may set an important precedent for both employers and social welfare dept.

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

I don’t think an employer should be penalised for an employees annual leave choices. Different situation if you went there on work related matter. Let’s see if the government provides for illness benefit in cases where employees are off work due to concerns over illness rather than actual illness. It may set an important precedent for both employers and social welfare dept.

It's not a penalty for various reasons.

This is legal discussion so you might consider the employers duty of care to provide a safe work environment, will that extend to having reasonable practical measures to ensure staff are not unnecessarily exposed to a sick colleague.

Health and safety act 2005.

You might also consider the cost of potential cases brought by members of the public if exposed to the virus in your premises.

I would think on balance 2 weeks sick leave partially funded by holiday entitlements, time owed, work from home arrangements might be sensible.

seamus

If your employer sends you home when you are available to work, then they must pay you.

They cannot put you on sick leave unless you are sick. They cannot force you to go see a doctor unless it's part of your contract.

So if you turn up and say, "I think I'm high risk, but I'm not going to take sick leave because you won't pay me", then it's firmly in your employer's hands.

Senature

Many small to medium sized businesses would find it a significant struggle to pay people who are not working so therefore productivity is reduced. Many others simply won't have the money to cover this.

The vast majority of people seem to see staying at home as a way of limiting the spread of this virus. But the general expectation seems to be that someone else should pay for it.

Harry Palmr

This is where the government needs to kick in - if you are considered a risk due to proximity to others (ie Italy holiday) then it should be a requirement you are isolated and paid from the social welfare system to a maximum amount of 200 euro a week.

(by the way anyone who's been on a skiing trip to Italy shouldn't be too badly off should they?)

beauf

seamus wrote: »

...So if you turn up and say, "I think I'm high risk, but I'm not going to take sick leave because you won't pay me", then it's firmly in your employer's hands.

This is the scenario I've been wondering about.

Doesn't even have to be about pay. If you have limited sick leave and if you go over they take your annual leave in lieu which you might need for other essential things. Then if sick with even a regular illness that is contagious people will come into work and pass it on to others.

There should be at least some extra unpaid leave facility.

jcd5971

If a person contracts this and faces the prospect of 2 weeks with no pay, with mortgage/car payments/etc etc due, I can envisage a scenario where they hide the fact they are symptomatic as they cannot afford to lose the money.

This is a real issue and a fund should have been in place by now to support those who are suspected of having the illness.

Expecting folk to just suck it up and lose out to protect the rest of society, while admirable is unrealistic in my opinion and will lead to the eventual spreading of this.

runawaybishop

seamus wrote: »

If your employer sends you home when you are available to work, then they must pay you.

They cannot put you on sick leave unless you are sick. They cannot force you to go see a doctor unless it's part of your contract.

So if you turn up and say, "I think I'm high risk, but I'm not going to take sick leave because you won't pay me", then it's firmly in your employer's hands.

This is wrong on both accounts.

GM228

runawaybishop wrote: »

seamus wrote: »

If your employer sends you home when you are available to work, then they must pay you.

They cannot put you on sick leave unless you are sick. They cannot force you to go see a doctor unless it's part of your contract.

So if you turn up and say, "I think I'm high risk, but I'm not going to take sick leave because you won't pay me", then it's firmly in your employer's hands.

This is wrong on both accounts.

It's not so clear cut, the principles of the mutual duty of fidelity, trust and confidence come into play, there is an implied contractual right to both be provided with work and remuneration, but, of course as pointed out the duty of care on other employees come into play, there are competing duties at play, failing to leave work when your potentially a risk to your employer and fellow colleagues could be a breach of the duty of mutual trust and confidence with the employer.

It is long held an employer can make any reasonable demand of their employees, and failure to follow such reasonable demands can result in the end of your employment contract, now the question turns to is it reasonable to ask an employee to return home and see a doctor when they may potentially be the carrier of an illness which could have a detrimental effect on the employer and their employees - I think it is.

c.p.w.g.w

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Mist employers don't offer sick pay to most workers.

Yes multi nationalscdo to articulate, high skilled people. But regular workers, no.

If someone doesn't have enough saving to live on for three months, they should not be doing ski trips to Italy.

I have a holiday booked to Northern Italy in September...Flights & Hotel cost €600 between myself & OH booked it before xmas. It's not that expensive to go to Italy

seamus

seamus wrote: »

If your employer sends you home when you are available to work, then they must pay you.

They cannot put you on sick leave unless you are sick. They cannot force you to go see a doctor unless it's part of your contract.

So if you turn up and say, "I think I'm high risk, but I'm not going to take sick leave because you won't pay me", then it's firmly in your employer's hands.

They can just call the Gardaí.

https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEE0AmBQ7cZnW5J-94l213zsqGQgEKhAIACoHCAow0dKVCzDCt6sDMI7oxgY?hl=en-IE&gl=IE&ceid=IE%3Aen

Masala

The fault of the sickness is not the employers. I would take a dim view if my employer allowed him back to work so that he can pay his bills.

Anyway... it’s the medical people who will determine if he has COVID. It’s the meiical people who will instruct him to stay off work. Mtpy employer won’t let him back without a Return to Woek Cert

https://news.google.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?hl=en-IE&gl=IE&ceid=IE%3Aen

Peregrinus

Masala wrote: »

The fault of the sickness is not the employers . . .

Sickness pay isn't a matter of allocating fault. It's not as though Covid-19 is a divine judgment, and our role is to work out who God is punishing and make sure we punish them too, in case God gets even crosser.

The issue here is, what's going to have the best societal outcome? Obvs if someone is, or is at high risk of being, infectious, from a societal point of view it's best if they don't go to work. But if they suffer a financial hardship by not going to work, that gives them a financial incentive to go to work. On the assumption that people tend to respond to financial incentives, that means that at least some people who are or may be infectious will go to work, if necessary ignoring their own symptions, or denying or minimising their implications. People will convince themselves that they are unlikely to be infectious as a preliminary to not telling their employer that they may be.

On the other hand, if the virus spread here as it has in other countries, the number of people who are required to stay home from work for a period may become very large. It would be a considerable burden on employers to require them to pay all these people, especially if their own business is suffering cash-flow problems because work isn't being done or the public are staying at home and not spending money.

So, this isn't an easy one to answer. But we can be reasonably confident that the best route to finding the best answer is not going to be to ask "who's to blame for this?"

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sickness pay isn't a matter of allocating fault. It's not as though Covid-19 is a divine judgment, and our role is to work out who God is punishing and make sure we punish them too, in case God gets even crosser.

The issue here is, what's going to have the best societal outcome? Obvs if someone is, or is at high risk of being, infectious, from a societal point of view it's best if they don't go to work. But if they suffer a financial hardship by not going to work, that gives them a financial incentive to go to work. On the assumption that people tend to respond to financial incentives, that means that at least some people who are or may be infectious will go to work, if necessary ignoring their own symptions, or denying or minimising their implications. People will convince themselves that they are unlikely to be infectious as a preliminary to not telling their employer that they may be.

On the other hand, if the virus spread here as it has in other countries, the number of people who are required to stay home from work for a period may become very large. It would be a considerable burden on employers to require them to pay all these people, especially if their own business is suffering cash-flow problems because work isn't being done or the public are staying at home and not spending money.

So, this isn't an easy one to answer. But we can be reasonably confident that the best route to finding the best answer is not going to be to ask "who's to blame for this?"

Would this not apply to all contagious illnesses of varying severity? A large number of people succumb to complications associated with common flu, 64k last year in the US alone.

Individual businesses should not bare the resposoncibilty of doing what is best for society as a whole, that should fall on a Government. Will society be better served if businesses close and employees become unemployed if employers can not afford to pay employees off sick while income drops due to consumer worries and falling production?

As linked above, Government is discussing making illness benefit available immediately.

randomrb

Dav010 wrote: »

Would this not apply to all contagious illnesses of varying severity? A large number of people succumb to complications associated with common flu, 64k last year in the US alone.

Individual businesses should not bare the resposoncibilty of doing what is best for society as a whole, that should fall on a Government. Will society be better served if businesses close and employees become unemployed if employers can not afford to pay employees off sick while income drops due to consumer worries and falling production?

As linked above, Government is discussing making illness benefit available immediately.

The problem with illness benefit is that it is either ripe for abuse or you have to see a doctor to get it which will completely overwhelm already busy GP's.

Peregrinus

Dav010 wrote: »

Would this not apply to all contagious illnesses of varying severity? A large number of people succumb to complications associated with common flu, 64k last year in the US alone.

Individual businesses should not bare the resposoncibilty of doing what is best for society as a whole, that should fall on a Government. Will society be better served if businesses close and employees become unemployed if employers can not afford to pay employees off sick while income drops due to consumer worries and falling production?

As linked above, Government is discussing making illness benefit available immediately.

Costs that "fall on government" come back to businesses and workers anyway, since they are funded by social insurance contributions. What the system does is manage the cost by pooling it and spreading it across all employers and workers, rather than focussing it on the employers who happen to have a high concentration of people absent from work.

But the present situation is slightly unusual. In general one of the conditions to qualify for sickness benefit is that you should be actually sick, and if you're not sick you are expected to work as normal. But in the present crisis we are taking the view that people who may be infectious shoul not be going to work. Most of these people will in fact not be infected, and will not be infectious. They won't qualify for sickness benefit.

So, you could change the rules for sickness benefit, so that people who meet the criteria for self-isolation qualify for it regardless of whether they are sick or not. But now you have a problem of how to police the rules. The current rules involve being actually sick, and this is something which can be checked by a medical examination, and established by a medical certificate. But obviously the extended rules, which don't involve being sick, aren't necesarily something which a doctor can verify or sign off on, so you may need to devise a new system for certifying that people meet these conditions, work out who is going to do the certifying, and prepare and train those people. This takes time. In the meantime the crisis is happening now. And your employer really, really doesn't want you turning up for work if you may be infectious.