Health and safety in the workplace
The Government guidance is clear that as a result of the coronavirus, anyone who can work from home should do so, but there are plenty of jobs that cannot be undertaken from home raising concerns over the enforcement of the 2-meter distance rule in some workplaces, or the availability of items such as hand sanitiser or protective equipment.
Please note: the information contained in our legal updates are correct as of the original date of publication
The Government guidance is clear that as a result of the coronavirus, anyone who can work from home should do so. But there are plenty of jobs that cannot be undertaken from home and there have already been press reports of employees raising concerns over the enforcement of the 2-meter distance rule in some workplaces, or the availability of items such as hand sanitiser or protective equipment. In such circumstances, employees concerned about their health (or the health of their household members) may choose to vote with their feet and either leave work, or refuse to attend again until the issues are resolved.
There is existing legislation in place which protects employees from either being subjected to a detriment or being dismissed (including being selected for redundancy) because they have left work, are proposing to leave work, or are refusing to return to work in circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believes to be serious and imminent, and which the employee could not reasonably be expected to avert.
Employees are also entitled to take appropriate steps to protect themselves (or others) from the danger. This could potentially include steps taken to protect more vulnerable household members. What steps are appropriate will be judged by all the circumstances of the case, including the employee’s knowledge and the facilities and advice available to him at the time. Clearly, any protective measures put in place by the employer, and whether the employee is acting in line with reputable guidance (rather than, for example, gossip or social media speculation) will be relevant.
Whether the threshold of serious and imminent danger is met will be fact specific in every case. However, it is important to note that the requirement is for the employee to reasonably believe the danger to be serious and imminent – the employer does not have to agree with that assessment. Given the threat level associated with the coronavirus pandemic, and the extent of the isolation and distancing guidance issued to date, it is not hard to imagine that a Tribunal would be sympathetic to an employee who reported that the measures advised by the Government were not being adhered to.
“Danger” can also occur due to the actions of other employees. For example, an employee who is refusing to self-isolate when displaying the recognised symptoms of coronavirus could be perceived to be significant danger to other employees.
Workers may also raise protected disclosures where they reasonably believe that the health and safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered. Workers are protected from being subjected to a detriment or dismissed because they have raised a protected disclosure.
Employers will need to be alive to the concerns raised by employees/workers and ensure that if there are any health and safety issues that arise, these are dealt with swiftly and effectively. They should ensure that the minimum precautions advised by the Government are adhered to and that steps are taken to minimise any risks caused by the particular premises, work methods or job roles. Where required, appropriate protective equipment should be provided, and employees/workers should be both trained properly on its application and use, and monitored for compliance. Any employees/workers who are displaying the recognised symptoms of coronavirus should be instructed to leave the workplace and self-isolate – with further action taken if they continue to refuse to adhere to this instruction.
Employers who are faced with employees who have left, are threatening to leave, or refusing to attend work as a result of health and safety concerns will need to act cautiously and may wish to consider seeking legal advice before taking action.
Related expertise
You may be interested in...
Opinion
Mopping up after a leak – how businesses can take steps to protect their confidential information
Online Event
Wellbeing and financial considerations – practical solutions for challenging times
Press Release
Browne Jacobson collaborates with The GLAA and University of Nottingham to tackle modern slavery and human trafficking
In Person Event
Navigating your way through high profile sensitive reviews and investigations
Legal Update
Teacher strikes – lessons learnt so far
Opinion
Can toilet facilities amount to sex discrimination?
Opinion
Consultation launched on minimum ambulance service levels during strike action
Opinion - Maternity services
Changes to redundancy protections for employees post-maternity leave
Opinion
BMA issues medical locum rate card for junior doctors
Legal Update
Employee who refused to wear a face mask fairly dismissed
Opinion
New toolkit to support safer recruitment in the care sector
On-Demand
Employment update webinar
Legal Update
Update on the Digital Services Act (“DSA”) – Important Dates and Deadlines Looming
Opinion
Term-time school worker entitled to national minimum wage for unworked basic hours
Opinion
Fire and re-hire – draft statutory code
Legal Update
Public matters - January 2023
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advises Natural England on investigation of ‘first in its kind’ sentenced Devon farmer
Opinion
Menopause and the workplace
Opinion
Consultation on holiday entitlement – part-year and irregular workers
Opinion
Government introduces new “anti-striking laws” to be discussed in Parliament
Opinion
Twitter facing employment claims following mass redundancies
News that Twitter is being threatened with multiple claims by UK employees following mass redundancies provides a reminder of the risks that comes with an employer implementing large scale redundancy exercises.Legal Update
Industrial Action and Minimum Service Levels
Legal Update
Biodiversity Net Gain: positive for nature and an opportunity for landowners
Legal Update
Discrimination comes of age
Legal Update - Shared Insights
Shared Insights: Looking ahead to 2023 – what Health and Care employers need to know
Published Article
Consumer duty part 3 - 'The drill-down' into the 'cross-cutting' rules
Opinion
Rising Employment Tribunal backlog
Legal Update
Official statistics demonstrate a new wave of age discrimination claims
Opinion
Menopause and the NHS workforce addressing the female brain drain…
Opinion
4-day working week a success?
The Covid-19 pandemic drastically changed the world’s way of working, with increased flexibility being greatly desired by employees. Earlier on in the year, a number of organisations trialled the concept of a 4-day working week – which has clearly been a success for many.Legal Update
Coming of age
Official statistics show that 15,336 claims which included a complaint of age discrimination were received at the Employment Tribunals between March 2020 and March 2021.
Published Article
Starling Bank employment tribunal
The outcome of the Employment Tribunal claim brought by Gulnaz Raja against Starling Bank Limited (1) (Starling), and Matthew Newman (2) was reported last month.
Published Article
EU banks show slow progress on gender diversity
Opinion
Rising wages ahead
In the Autumn Statement delivered on 17 November, rises to the National Living Wage and National Minimum Wage rates were announced, to take effect from 1 April 2023.
Opinion
World Cup 2022 – how employers can avoid scoring an own goal!
The World Cup kicks off in Qatar on Sunday 20 November 2022, with the final taking place on Sunday 18 December 2022. Undoubtedly, this is a huge sporting event, and many employees will be keen to show their support for their favourite teams. However, due to the time difference, start times for the matches are between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. UK time, which could have an impact on employers if employees who wish to watch the matches are scheduled to work.
Legal Update
Settlement agreements – what are the limitations?
Settlement agreements are commonplace in an employment context and are ordinarily used to provide the parties to the agreement with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship.
Opinion
Logistics firm fined for multiple failings leading to asbestos exposure
Logistics company Eddie Stobart has been fined £133,000, after a series of failures which took place whilst excavation work was carried out, exposing its staff to asbestos.
Published Article
Consumer duty part 2 - 'The drill-down' into the 'cross-cutting' rules
This article is the second in a series to help firms take a practical approach to complying with the ‘cross-cutting rules’ within the new ‘Consumer Duty’ (CD) framework. The article summarises what it seems the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is seeking to achieve from the applicable rules (section 2 below) and potential complications arising from legal considerations (section 3).
Opinion
The vanishing dismissal
Where an employee appeals against their dismissal under a contractual appeal procedure and their appeal is successful, reinstatement to their previous role is automatic and does not require approval or agreement from the employee.
Opinion
Directors fined for unsafe removal of asbestos
Two directors of a construction company were fined after failing to ensure the safe removal of asbestos from a plot of land. On 14 and 15 November 2021, Directors Anthony Sumner and Neil Brown, of Waterbarn Limited were involved in the uncontrolled removal of asbestos material from a plot of land in Grasscroft, Oldham.