Employers restricting freedom of movement

Durtburd

Hi all

A hypothetical I've been thinking about for a few days now

If an employee were to opt to travel during the Covid crisis to a state not on the green list, would their employers have any right to do anything in reaction to this i.e. disciplinary action. As it may mean (depending on ability or willingness to allow working from home) the employee would miss 2 weeks of work as a result of having to quarantine on their return.

The way I would see it is, there is no government restriction from travelling, only recommendations, so there would be no grounds on which the employer could reprimand the employee.

GerardKeating

Durtburd wrote: »

As it may mean (depending on ability or willingness to allow working from home) the employee would miss 2 weeks of work as a result of having to quarantine on their return.

In theory, all Employers are restricting freedom of movement, they require you to be in the office 9-5

The main sanction the Employer can take is the two week (or more) of unpaid leave while the employee quarantine's, they might also insist that the employee take a covid test (again at the employee expense) before they are allowed to return to work.

But if the employee had been told to ensure they were in work for certain duties/tasks and missed this because of quarantine, there could be disciplinary actions...

BattleCorp

Durtburd wrote: »

The way I would see it is, there is no government restriction from travelling, only recommendations, so there would be no grounds on which the employer could reprimand the employee.

There is the requirement to restrict movements for 14 days though after coming back from a non-green list country.

Wouldn't that be reason enough for the Company to require the worker to take a two-week unpaid leave of absence?

stinkbomb

Yes, disciplinary action is entirely possible. If you ask for weeks annual leave, and it's approved, you are due back at your job in one week. If you choose to go somewhere that means you need to quarantine on return, you are effectively choosing to take two more weeks off work, which you have not agreed with your employer and has not been authorised. You're effectively AWOL and your employer could easily fire you for it.

BattleCorp

stinkbomb wrote: »

Yes, disciplinary action is entirely possible. If you ask for weeks annual leave, and it's approved, you are due back at your job in one week. If you choose to go somewhere that means you need to quarantine on return, you are effectively choosing to take two more weeks off work, which you have not agreed with your employer and has not been authorised. You're effectively AWOL and your employer could easily fire you for it.

But counter to that argument is that you are legally required to take those two weeks off, so how can your employer discipline you for doing something that you are legally required to do?

What happens if the person goes to a green list country on their hols, therefore no need to restrict movements for 14 days upon return, but then the status of the green list country changes while you are away?

I think the only option open to the company is to not pay you for not turning up for work for those two weeks while you were restricting your movements. I don't think they can discipline you further.

Feasog Dearg

BattleCorp wrote: »

But counter to that argument is that you are legally required to take those two weeks off, so how can your employer discipline you for doing something that you are legally required to do?

What happens if the person goes to a green list country on their hols, therefore no need to restrict movements for 14 days upon return, but then the status of the green list country changes while you are away?

I think the only option open to the company is to not pay you for not turning up for work for those two weeks while you were restricting your movements. I don't think they can discipline you further.

The issue here is transparency and honesty. If you take a week's leave and travel to a country not on the green list, you are essentially being dishonest with your employer about your leave requirements. Your employer is entitled to place you on unpaid leave for your quarantine period. They may also discipline you for not applying for the appropriate amount of leave if and they would not be in error doing so - once they can show that the country was not on the green list before you went on leave.



If the status of a country changes, that is the fault of neither party. In this instance, most reasonable employers would allow the use of remaining annual leave. However, they would still be entitled to place you on unpaid leave should they choose to do so, as you are absent from work due to actions on your own part. The employer is not at fault here either.

BattleCorp

And just to muddy the waters further..............

I know I said it is a legal requirement to restrict movements for 14 days when you return from a non-green list country but I'm not 100% sure this the case. Is it a legal requrement because the web page below states that people are 'asked' to restrict movements for 14 days.

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/8868e-view-the-covid-19-travel-advice-list/

GerardKeating

BattleCorp wrote: »

But counter to that argument is that you are legally required to take those two weeks off, so how can your employer discipline you for doing something that you are legally required to do?

If you are drunk, you are legally required to refrain from driving, or operating heavy machinery, are you saying if an employee went on the beer one night, the employer could not discipline them for being unavailable for work the next day?

BattleCorp wrote: »

What happens if the person goes to a green list country on their hols, therefore no need to restrict movements for 14 days upon return, but then the status of the green list country changes while you are away?

But as many UK holiday makers found out last week, this is a real risk.

BattleCorp wrote: »

I think the only option open to the company is to not pay you for not turning up for work for those two weeks while you were restricting your movements. I don't think they can discipline you further.

If they clearly stated to the employee in advance of going on leave, that they could face sanction for unauthorised leave due to quarantine AND outlined the possible sanctions and apply the rules fairly, then they might have a good case for any action.

I do know some employers mandate that employees must take upaid leave when quaranting and don't permit working from home during quarantine, even when they are normally working from home, this is unfair.

BattleCorp

GerardKeating wrote: »

I do know some employers mandate that employees must take upaid leave when quaranting and don't permit working from home during quarantine, even when they are normally working from home, this is unfair.

I agree with you somewhat but can you legally treat employees differently. For example, one company that has a factory. Production workers have to work on the factory floor. You can't do that kind of work when you are working from home. Office workers have the potential to work from home so they are working from home.

So, is it fair to require the factory production staff to take two weeks unpaid leave while they are restricting movements while the office staff don't have to while they are restricting their movements as they are working from home?

Connavar

BattleCorp wrote: »

I agree with you somewhat but can you legally treat employees differently. For example, one company that has a factory. Production workers have to work on the factory floor. You can't do that kind of work when you are working from home. Office workers have the potential to work from home so they are working from home.

So, is it fair to require the factory production staff to take two weeks unpaid leave while they are restricting movements while the office staff don't have to while they are restricting their movements as they are working from home?

I would say its totally fair. Just because they are working under the same company doesnt mean they should all get the same restricitons (just like they are most likely paid differently based on their roles)
Those wfh can do their job on quarantine while those who have to go in cant and this is known before any travel takes place

nokia3310

In the civil service people would have to go unpaid for the two weeks or take additional annual leave if they travel abroad for non-essential reasons.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0715/1153544-civil-service-quarantine/

GerardKeating

Feasog Dearg wrote: »

If the status of a country changes, that is the fault of neither party.

If an employee undertakes an risky/unwise activtiy (for example bungy jumping/drinking 20 units of alcohol/Travels abroad) and this make them unavailabe for work, are they totally blameless ?

Feasog Dearg wrote: »

In this instance, most reasonable employers would allow the use of remaining annual leave. However, they would still be entitled to place you on unpaid leave should they choose to do so, as you are absent from work due to actions on your own part. The employer is not at fault here either.

Certainly the employer can expect the employee to use leave (paid or otherwise) for when they are not available for work, but equally even "reasonable" employers can take issue with unauthorised leave.

the_pen_turner

Quaranteeni g when you come back is legally required but going is optional.

stargazer 68

the_pen_turner wrote: »

Quaranteeni g when you come back is legally required but going is optional.

Its not a legal requirement as has been said on many other threads. You are asked to restrict your movements.

stinkbomb

BattleCorp wrote: »

But counter to that argument is that you are legally required to take those two weeks off, so how can your employer discipline you for doing something that you are legally required to do?

What happens if the person goes to a green list country on their hols, therefore no need to restrict movements for 14 days upon return, but then the status of the green list country changes while you are away?

I think the only option open to the company is to not pay you for not turning up for work for those two weeks while you were restricting your movements. I don't think they can discipline you further.

You weren't legally required to go on holiday to somewhere requiring a quarantine, so that holds no water at all. You chose to go, you put yourself in the position of being unavailable for work for the extra 2 weeks. You absolutely could be disciplined, no issue.

On the second scenario you could argue that it was no fault of your own, and I would imagine most employers would be flexible. BUT, again you chose to go on holiday in the middle of a pandemic, knowing that the quarantine lists are ever changing. It was certainly a forseeable possibility that you may well have to quarantine on return. You'd be on dodgy ground.

Most people are taking the advice and not going abroad on holiday. If you choose to, you take the risks involved, and that includes to your job.

seamus

Short answer to the OP is that the employer does not have to pay the employee for their 14-day quarantine, and in the interests of staff safety, they arguably have a duty to refuse to allow the employee to return to work outside of their home.

No employee has an entitlement to unpaid leave and since the requirement to quarantine is known about before leaving, the company could discipline the employee for being unavailable for work without prior approval.

This seems like one of the few scenarios where an employer could (in theory) refuse to allow an employee on the premises and also reprimand them for not being in work.

Being drunk during working hours is another one.