Holiday - employers covid requirements

bladespin

With all the news about the government possibly dropping the isolation request for travel to some countries I’m hearing a lot of employers are forcing anyone who plans to travel abroad on holiday to self isolate unpaid afterwards or not allowing travel abroad at all. Can they do this?

I’m not arguing for or against travel here just posing the question, in my own job I haven’t heard anything about holidays, (restrictions or otherwise)and am planning on taking some soon as August is generally a quiet month for me work wise, we’re undecided but with the ‘green list’ talk there is the temptation.

During a recent lunchtime chat with a coworker the subject came up and he made it very clear he would object to my presence if I travelled, I can completely understand this and I’m not keen on making anyone feel uncomfortable but at the same time disagree with coworkers interfering with the terms of my employment, I’ve worked with the company nearly 15 years and they’ve never placed any conditions on leave (other than number of days) once notice is given, I will isolate if required or am happy to take the test before returning to work (if we do go). Just would like to know where I stand re being forced to take extra time at my expense, especially if I offer to go the test route.

Also as an aside, part of my work does involve visiting some bio hazard labs, I don’t have an issue with that but feel a little irony is in there.

Not sure what to do.

Jim2007

No idea. But I'd be more worried about being caught in a lockdown while abroad for weeks and not getting paid....

vandriver

I'd be inclined not to discuss your personal life with colleagues.

Minier81

We have been told to take an additional 2weeks annual leave if travelling abroad yo allow for isolation. No idea how legal that it, but I have no intention of travelling so not really an issue for me. I work in the public service (Hospital).

cml387

Minier81 wrote: »

We have been told to take an additional 2weeks annual leave if travelling abroad yo allow for isolation. No idea how legal that it, but I have no intention of travelling so not really an issue for me. I work in the public service (Hospital).

Ditto for us,and ditto for not intending to go anywhere. I would say it's pretty widespread.

bladespin

Jim2007 wrote: »

No idea. But I'd be more worried about being caught in a lockdown while abroad for weeks and not getting paid....

Thanks, no idea if we'll go (as per post) just thinking about it, but would like to know where I stand, especially if I traveled to a government authorized (green list) country.

Fann Linn

I believe the Garda Commissioner has also issued something today if Gardai go abroad where they need to take 2 weeks off also on return.

bladespin

Fann Linn wrote: »

I believe the Garda Commissioner has also issued something today if Gardai go abroad where they need to take 2 weeks off also on return.

Pretty sure HSE did that too, some time back.

drunkmonkey

I've brought in that rule, if you want to go against HSE advice take 14 days unpaid when you return, can't put the other staff in harms way. I don't see how there can be legal ramifications for protecting my other employees well-being.

bladespin

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I've brought in that rule, if you want to go against HSE advice take 14 days unpaid when you return, can't put the other staff in harms way. I don't see how there can be legal ramifications for protecting my other employees well-being.

I'm talking about when the HSE advice is that travel to certain areas is ok.

I've been doing some google research myself (not putting too much trust in google though) and it looks like they can't.

drunkmonkey

bladespin wrote: »

I'm talking about when the HSE advice is that travel to certain areas is ok.

I've been doing some google research myself (not putting too much trust in google though) and it looks like they can't.

The health advice won't change, the governments might. I'll be following what NEPHT recommends and they've been quite clear stay at home this summer.

bladespin

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The health advice won't change, the governments might. I'll be following what NEPHT recommends and they've been quite clear stay at home this summer.

What's the legal standing? (definitely not having a go, just curious), if an employee has traveled with the government's blessing and is not required to self isolate on return. I found some internet advice* that if an employee is fit to work etc. Also curious abut introducing this without the employee's knowledge (in your case I salute being upfront etc).

*internet advice being as reliable as a rusty bucket.

bladespin

vandriver wrote: »

I'd be inclined not to discuss your personal life with colleagues.

Seems the best advice, in fairness the chat was a 'would you go if you could?' type thing, no plans (we dont have any) were discussed - I do enjoy winding him up a bit as he fires up easily, I just said there were great deals for Lanzarotte.

Minier81 wrote: »

We have been told to take an additional 2weeks annual leave if travelling abroad yo allow for isolation. No idea how legal that it, but I have no intention of travelling so not really an issue for me. I work in the public service (Hospital).

I'd given up the hols back in March (esp with the weather), but once they started opening stuff up I'm itching for some fun.

drunkmonkey

What can an employee do, sue you for following health advice, can't see how it would go anywhere.

bladespin

drunkmonkey wrote: »

What can an employee do, sue you for following health advice, can't see how it would go anywhere.

Well yeah, probably (you can sue for anything here) but I'm not suggesting that (as said in first post), just want my ducks in a row as such if it went there, personally I think if you're fit and willing and forced not to work then you should receive full pay but that's a different thing - I don't want anyone to be uncomfortable.

I would be a little annoyed as I haven't been told this is the case for me though, to find out after booking, I've had no notification etc so this is very hypothetical though I would do the same as you if it was down to me BTW.

I can work from home if need be - I don't necessarily have to be in the office, I'd be happy to do that but think my colleague would probably object to that as well - fear cave dweller who would like anyone not afraid to be punished - his rant pretty much confirmed that for me.

How do you feel about the test thing? Would you consider that reasonable?

Stheno

bladespin wrote: »

Well yeah, probably (you can sue for anything here) but I'm not suggesting that (as said in first post), just want my ducks in a row as such if it went there, personally I think if you're fit and willing and forced not to work then you should receive full pay but that's a different thing - I don't want anyone to be uncomfortable.

I can work from home if need be - I don't necessarily have to be in the office, I'd be happy to do that but think my colleague would probably object to that as well - fear cave dweller who would like anyone not afraid to be punished - his rant pretty much confirmed that for me.

How do you feel about the test thing? Would you consider that reasonable?

Given that the test could be negative and you could then develop symptoms, I don't see that as an option

If you can work from home for the two weeks, that's what I'd do, it's what our office advise those who do travel to do, though most of us are wfh all the time so it makes no difference

bladespin

Stheno wrote: »

Given that the test could be negative and you could then develop symptoms, I don't see that as an option

If you can work from home for the two weeks, that's what I'd do, it's what our office advise those who do travel to do, though most of us are wfh all the time so it makes no difference

Thanks, guess that throws Eamonn Ryan's suggestion out too.

I think it's reasonable just afraid others would object - hence the questions really.

drunkmonkey

bladespin wrote: »

Well yeah, probably (you can sue for anything here) but I'm not suggesting that (as said in first post), just want my ducks in a row as such if it went there, personally I think if you're fit and willing and forced not to work then you should receive full pay but that's a different thing - I don't want anyone to be uncomfortable.

I would be a little annoyed as I haven't been told this is the case for me though, to find out after booking, I've had no notification etc so this is very hypothetical though I would do the same as you if it was down to me BTW.

I can work from home if need be - I don't necessarily have to be in the office, I'd be happy to do that but think my colleague would probably object to that as well - fear cave dweller who would like anyone not afraid to be punished - his rant pretty much confirmed that for me.

How do you feel about the test thing? Would you consider that reasonable?

The Virus has an incubation period, you may feel health on your return that doesn't mean you won't be dead or have killed anyone two weeks later. I'm taking absolutely no risks with the sensible staff.
Tbh it's probably going to effect their promotion prospects as I'll be annoyed their out for a month and proven themselves to be a clown by not being willing to take good advice.

bladespin

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The Virus has an incubation period, you may feel health on your return that doesn't mean you won't be dead or have killed anyone two weeks later. I'm taking absolutely no risks with the sensible staff.
Tbh it's probably going to effect their promotion prospects as I'll be annoyed their out for a month and proven themselves to be a clown by not being willing to take good advice.

You're absolutely right, tbh and thanks for answering, it's a hypothetical that's all, I won't be putting anyone at risk through any of my actions.

Though, funnily, it didn't bother my colleague when I was given the biohazard work - no protestations then - apols for the quip.

As mentioned already, advice would be that travel is ok.

Not really worried about promotion esp if a company that blanket changes terms and conditions of employment with prior knowledge or consent but that's a different argument for another day.

drunkmonkey

Ah I'm only joking about the promotion...I'd prefer if they didn't travel though.

I don't think your going to see travel is ok coming from the department of health this year maybe even next. I'd stick to the west coast here and just be ready to go once it looks like good weather on the horizon.

The more we learn about this disease the worse it seems to be, you don't want to catch it under any circumstances.

bladespin

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Ah I'm only joking about the promotion...I'd prefer if they didn't travel though.

I don't think your going to see travel is ok coming from the department of health this year maybe even next. I'd stick to the west coast here and just be ready to go once it looks like good weather on the horizon.

The more we learn about this disease the worse it seems to be, you don't want to catch it under any circumstances.

Urgh, the thoughts of a holiday here literally gives me symptoms tbh, I'll save my time and money, sooner or later we'll just have to get on with it.

Honestly the more I'm learning about it the less I'm worried, I know several people who've had it and recovered, one a man in his seventies, it's not nice for sure though they're fine now and describe it as 'feeling rotten' not hell etc etc, tomorrow I'll be handling samples that carry aids/hep C warnings
I've worked all the way through, travelling around the country, using service stations, hotels (if I could get one) etc I take whatever precautions are recommended (more if I feel necessary) but I don't worry overly about it; I'm more worried about how the company I work for is going to treat my holidays (not the hols themselves) not being given any notice of restrictions etc - then again they mightn't do anything, worrying in another way lol.

Minier81

bladespin wrote: »

I can work from home if need be - I don't necessarily have to be in the office, I'd be happy to do that but think my colleague would probably object to that as well - fear cave dweller who would like anyone not afraid to be punished - his rant pretty much confirmed that for me.

How do you feel about the test thing? Would you consider that reasonable?

Work from home is definitely the best, if you offer to do this then you are being the reasonable one!

Batgurl

I genuinely don’t know how employers plan to police this.

Say John from finance books 2 weeks holidays in August. He comes back from his 2 weeks with a lovely tan.

An employer has no right to know what he did for the previous 2 weeks. He could have gotten that tan in Lanzarote or Lahinch. Or a bottle for all the employer knows. He can ask him but John is under no obligation to answer where he has been the last 2 weeks.

How does an employer plan to enforce this legally? Sure there is a moral obligation on the employee to do the right thing, but I have no idea how this is expected to be managed?

Putting an employee on 2 weeks unpaid leave for suspicion of being out of the country is a legal case waiting to be taken to court.

drunkmonkey

It's not just a moral obligation as he's also a health and safety risk. If he wants to wilfully endanger other staff John could find himself out of a Job. I can't see any judge ruiling in John's favor. John is twat, don't be like John.

Batgurl

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's not just a moral obligation as he's also a health and safety risk. If he wants to wilfully endanger other staff John could find himself out of a Job. I can't see any judge ruiling in John's favor. John is twat, don't be like John.

The employer would need to prove that John is a definite health and safety risk; every single employee is a POTENTIAL health and safety risk.

And on top of that, they would likely need to prove that John is a higher health and safety risk than Tom, who may have gone to a rave in Kildare with 200 teenagers over the weekend.

drunkmonkey

Just watched the latest NEPHT meeting there now, the travel advice couldn't be any clearer we are urging the public not to Travel this year.
Pretty much all our cases now are a result of Travel.

If John traveled to Lanzarote he is a health and safety risk nothing needs to be proved the fact he travelled against national health advice is enough.

Under 25's I think represented 75% of today's cases, so yes Tom is at risk only because John wouldn't holiday at home this year.

I can not see any judge in the country prosecuting an employer because they put the health and safety of their employees first.

Batgurl

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Just watched the latest NEPHT meeting there now, the travel advice couldn't be any clearer we are urging the public not to Travel this year.
Pretty much all our cases now are a result of Travel.

If John traveled to Lanzarote he is a health and safety risk nothing needs to be proved the fact he travelled against national health advice is enough.

Under 25's I think represented 75% of today's cases, so yes Tom is at risk only because John wouldn't holiday at home this year.

I can not see any judge in the country prosecuting an employer because they put the health and safety of their employees first.

So answer my original question. How should this be policed?

How would an employer determine if John was abroad or not without creating a liability for themselves?

Wesser

Where would you get a test?

drunkmonkey

Batgurl wrote: »

So answer my original question. How should this be policed?

How would an employer determine if John was abroad or not without creating a liability for themselves?

The more staff you have the more complicated it gets but you'd expect staff to be concerned about John's behavior and report him. If John went and came back and tried to hide it and got caught out i'd fire his ass immediately. The company policy is two weeks unpaid if you leave the country against health advice. I'd view it as gross misconduct if you threathen the health of other staff members.

There's a time to fight for your rights and smack bang at the start of a global pandemic is not one of them.

Batgurl

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The more staff you have the more complicated it gets but you'd expect staff to be concerned about John's behavior and report him. If John went and came back and tried to hide it and got caught out i'd fire his ass immediately. The company policy is two weeks unpaid if you leave the country against health advice. I'd view it as gross misconduct if you threathen the health of other staff members.

There's a time to fight for your rights and smack bang at the start of a global pandemic is not one of them.

You’ve said a lot of words there but I don’t see any answers.

I’m genuinely curious as to how employers can roll out a legally compliant way of doing this.

Relying on staff gossip and accusations to decide if someones ass should be fired or not, is not exactly built into legislation.

drunkmonkey

You ask them, are you leaving the country on Holidays, it's pretty simple. We're in a pandemic, it's not case of being legally compliant, it's a pandemic where there is a Huge risk if people decide to travel abroad.
Lie to your employer on this one at your peril if your going to be in close contact with other employees or customers on your return.