[ad_1]
An office worker had no choice but to quit her job during the first Covid-19 shutdown after her employer rejected her request to work remotely from home, according to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC). ).
WRC adjudicating officer Kevin Baneham has ordered the employer to pay the operations coordinator compensation of 3,712 euros for his unfair dismissal on May 12.
In an email to her employer, a university-based facility management service provider, the worker stated that her employer’s refusal to accept the remote work proposal “has increased the risk of infection with Covid-19 for the three operations coordinators. “
“In case one of us gets sick, I will put my husband, who is an asthmatic patient, at risk,” she said.
In its ruling, Baneham found that the university’s operations coordinator “had no choice but to resign” after her employer failed to take reasonably practical steps to mitigate the risk posed by Covid-19 in the workplace.
Mr. Baneham found that the employer failed to implement the proposals made by three office workers that would have eliminated the risk of Covid-19 transmission in the workplace.
The employer rejected a proposal by the three that two could work remotely at any time in response to the risk posed by Covid-19.
In the case, the woman, who was represented by SIPTU, worked for the facilities management company of a university where there are 3,200 rooms to accommodate students.
In his findings, Mr. Baneham found that the employer’s requirement that the operations coordinator attend the workplace without proper consideration of eliminating the risk posed by Covid-19 “amounts to repudiation of the contract.”
“This arises because providing a safe workplace is a fundamental term of the employment contract,” he added.
Mr. Baneham found that the employer did not comply with the legal framework by first seeking to eliminate the risk, “making the worker go to work in greater danger.”
“In this case, the risk could have been easily eliminated or reduced through ‘reasonably feasible’ steps, as suggested by the complainant.”
Mr. Baneham stated that the operations coordinator “made a clear complaint and suggested how the job could be done in the safest way possible.”
“This was not adequately considered by the defendant, leaving her with no real option but to resign,” he said.
The award given by Mr. Baneham would have been higher if the worker in question had secured alternative employment within five weeks at a higher salary.
“As an infectious disease, Covid-19 constitutes a biological hazard. In this context and at the center of this case are the duties of both the employer and the employee derived from the Law on Safety, Health and Welfare at Work and the principles underlying health and safety. “Baneham said.
Some 1,000 students were trapped on campus in March, some of whom self-isolated.
She affirmed that the worker and her colleagues faced the difficult task of managing thousands of students who vacated their accommodation at the beginning of the confinement.
Mr. Baneham stated that it was surprising that the employer did not test the “eminently sensible” suggestion of the three office operations coordinators that only one worker attend the office and the others telecommute at a time.
The worker provided a “lockdown” photo taken on April 17, showing her and her colleagues working closely in the small office.
In an email dated April 17, the worker told her employer that she could not socially distance herself from her two colleagues in the workplace.
In a formal complaint filed on April 30, the three operations coordinators stated: “All three of us have family members in the ‘at risk’ category and we are concerned about the health of our family members as well as our own well-being.”
They stated that these concerns were brought to the attention of the employer’s line manager numerous times at the start and during the Covid-19 outbreak “but nothing was done about it and no attention and consideration was returned.”
“Most of our work can be completed from home, but if there are issues that require our presence, there will be a coordinator in the office to address them. This will minimize the risk of infection and help us keep ourselves and our family protected. “. “declared the workers.
However, in response, the employer rejected the work-from-home proposal.
In a May 4 letter, the employer stated: “Before Covid-19, it was never suggested that roles could be performed remotely, and the same situation applies in a post-Covid situation.
“Each person can take time off from work and check if they are entitled to a state benefit. The position will remain under review, but at present the employer’s position is that all three roles are not suitable for telecommuting,” the employer added. .
The employer stated that he had taken Covid-19 precautions in the workplace, including PPE; change the physical layout of the office; the installation of screens and warning tape and movable tables.
In her resignation letter sent by email on May 12, the operations coordinator stated upon her return to the office that her anxiety and stress levels had increased once again and this time they had triggered panic attacks.
“With this email communication I deliver my notice, as I cannot handle the pressure levels imposed by management and the impact this is having on my health,” he said.
He stated that the employer’s approach “to the whole situation has been a real disappointment and the lack of attention to their employees has left me discouraged and insecure.”
The doctor from the facilities management company said at the hearing that the worker believed that she should work from home, but the company’s client would not have allowed this to happen.
He said that his job was critical and that the client would not have allowed him to work from home.
He explained that it was the coordinators’ role to deal with the students and that they should be on campus.
The MD stated that fortunately no staff member contracted Covid-19, not at the university or anywhere else.
He stated that the client had the best record of all the universities in Ireland and this was due to the precautions taken.
In response to the suggestion that some coordinators work from home, the Director General told the audience that he was so busy at the moment that everyone should be there.
Labor law expert Richard Grogan described the WRC ruling as “a wake-up call” for employers. Mr. Grogan was not involved in the case.
But he stated that “the amount of compensation is not high as the worker got a new job in a short space of time, but the findings are important as it is the first decision the WRC has made regarding an unfair case related to Covid-19 or constructive dismissal “.
“I think we are going to see a lot more Covid-19 cases in the WRC,” the Dublin-based lawyer said.
The Irish Congress of Trade Unions welcomed the WRC award on remote work.
Dr. Laura Bambrick, a social policy officer, said the case shows the importance of legislation that requires employers to provide reasonable grounds for rejecting a remote work application.
He pointed out that the Government has committed to granting workers the right to request remote work as of September as part of its National Strategy for Distance Work.
He said much of the reluctance from employers to approve telecommuting had been based on a lack of trust, but the Covid-19 experiment had shown that it can work successfully.
Small business body ISME executive director Neil McDonnell said they would need to study the details of the award.
However, he noted that many employers were concerned about employers’ long-term responsibilities and obligations when employees work from home, including in regards to health and safety, and work time.
[ad_2]