Employment advice, Covid-19 related

[glasgowcyclist]

My wife’s friend is 70+ and has worked as a secretary at a large car dealership for 17 years.
She has no health problems whatsoever but has been sent home from work to self-isolate purely because ’she is in a category that the government says is susceptible to Covid-19 and should be self-isolating’. Her employer is only giving her SSP and will not pay her normal salary.

She is not sick so can anyone with knowledge of employment law tell me if this is a legitimate course of action?

It seems decidedly dodgy to me, not least because she is not sick and the government suggestion for those over 70 is not to self-isolate but to reduce unnecessary social contact. It is not mandatory and does not relate to avoiding going to work.

 

[Drago]

Why is the employer paying SSP when she's not off sick?

They can't lawfully treat her adversely on the grounds of age.

Mrs D has MS and her employer sent her home yesterday (it's pretty moot now as all schools are closing on friday anyway). The conversation with her HR department was that she would be on full pay, and they couldn't do otherwise even if they wanted to as that would be discriminatory due to her disability.

 

[tom73]

May help you
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-to-employers-and-businesses-about-covid-19

 

[glasgowcyclist]

May help you
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-to-employers-and-businesses-about-covid-19

Thanks, I’ve read that and there’s nothing that covers staff being forcibly isolated by an employer.

I did find this though (from https://commonslibrary.parliament.u...h/coronavirus-employment-rights-and-sick-pay/)

The [SSP] regulations only apply if a person is unable to work because of self-isolation. An employee who works from home should be entitled to be paid their wages.

Where workers are instructed to stay at home by their employer, it is likely they would be entitled to their wages, particularly if they are instructed to work while at home.

I think the buggers are trying it on.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

More likely they don't know what they are doing in a rapidly-changing situation.

 

[screenman]

Why is the employer paying SSP when she's not off sick?

They can't lawfully treat her adversely on the grounds of age.

Mrs D has MS and her employer sent her home yesterday (it's pretty moot now as all schools are closing on friday anyway). The conversation with her HR department was that she would be on full pay, and they couldn't do otherwise even if they wanted to as that would be discriminatory due to her disability.

The schools are only shutting for some, most schools will still have plenty going in.

 

[tom73]

@glasgowcyclist I agree they can't force you to go on sick because of this outbreak. They should keep you on full pay not sick pay how you get a sick note out off 111 because you've been told to go home lord knows. Threaten to go public they wont like bad publicity.
It's true is a rapidly-changing situation.
But the guidelines about who's at risk and around self-isolation have not for a few days now. The government have let it be known that longer term self-isolation for all at risk groups who are well or not. Is coming but have yet to push the button.

 

[Slioch]

Many businesses, particularly smaller ones, are way behind the curve in terms of their knowledge of employment rights. They just don't have the fire-power in whatever passes for an HR Dept to do the right thing.

I'm not an expert, but sounds like possible discrimination to me.

 

[Pale Rider]

SSP is a government benefit for the employee.

The only way an employer comes into it is because they usually claim it on the employee's behalf.

SSP became relevant to the virus because the chancellor announced as part of the support measures it would be paid to those who self isolate.

So in this case the employer is only 'giving' the employee the minimum she is entitled to by law.

Were she on the usual sick, the employer would make the SSP up to the equivalent of full pay, assuming her contract said she was entitled to full pay while on the sick.

I suspect, but don't know, the employer is not obliged to do that in virus cases.

A first step would be to check the contract, if she is entitled to full sick pay it would at least be a bargaining chip.

It might even define other circumstances in which the employee is entitled to full pay.

I believe there may be a legal question when the employee is sent into isolation by the employer.

The employee may be entitled to full pay because it is implicit in the contract they will provide work to do in exchange for the salary.

There is an arguable view that the employer is in breach of contract because they are not providing work if they send the employee into self isolation.

The obvious remedy to that is to maintain full pay.

 

[marinyork]

My wife’s friend is 70+ and has worked as a secretary at a large car dealership for 17 years.
She has no health problems whatsoever but has been sent home from work to self-isolate purely because ’she is in a category that the government says is susceptible to Covid-19 and should be self-isolating’. Her employer is only giving her SSP and will not pay her normal salary.

She is not sick so can anyone with knowledge of employment law tell me if this is a legitimate course of action?

It seems decidedly dodgy to me, not least because she is not sick and the government suggestion for those over 70 is not to self-isolate but to reduce unnecessary social contact. It is not mandatory and does not relate to avoiding going to work.

It has no basis in law whatsoever. If I'm bored tomorrow I'll have a shop around for any caselaw.

If it was initiated by employer, it's also fraud. If there's no company sickpay on top of SSP I think that tells you all you need to know...

It's too late at night but it also has interesting discrimination connotations that might be relevant.

 

[Pale Rider]

What my lot do is not, of course, directly relevant to the OP, but may be of interest.

They've sent out a general virus policy which includes the condition full pay will be maintained in the event they order the employee into isolation.

A decent attitude, but it may partly be because they know they are on dodgy legal ground if they also withdraw the employee's wages.

 

[Drago]

The schools are only shutting for some, most schools will still have plenty going in.

Incorrect.

The children of key crisis workers will still be able to go to school. However, this is a relatively small number of children so only a small number of schools will remain open to accommodate them and the children will be "pooled" at these selected schools, so it is likely that such children may not be going to their usual school. It is not the case that most or every school will remain open .

This into is from Mrs D who is deputy year head at a very large school and who gets her information direct from the DfE.

 

[Milkfloat]

Incorrect.

The children of key crisis workers will still be able to go to school. However, this is a relatively small number of children so only a small number of schools will remain open to accommodate them and the children will be "pooled" at these selected schools, so it is likely that such children may not be going to their usual school. It is not the case that most or every school will remain open .

This into is from Mrs D who is deputy year head at a very large school and who gets her information direct from the DfE.

This is still a bit up in the air as Teachers have pointed out that they may not be insured or even DBS checked enough to work in other schools. I guess it will become a bit clearer over the next few days.

 

[tom73]

Both are right that's the DfE plan more detail will be coming. I'm waiting to find out if i'm part of this or if i'm done for the year. (don't have a regular contract or set hours)

 

[Drago]

Yep, the minutiae has yet to be resolved, but that is the plan.

DBS won't be an issue, the government will resolve that quickly. Theyve already had to do something similar with the police- all non essential police training has been cancelled, and the government has advised Chief freemasons that they now have the discretionary authority to extend officers first aid, defensive tactics, investigatorvie or authoritative accreditation etc as is required operationally, as they cant now do the courses to renew them. The only exception will be firearms training. Much the same will happen in schools - provided the DBS is in date theyll simply waive the site specific requirement for each check.