REFUSE TO RETURN FROM FURLOUGH?

unholyangel

diggingdude said:

unholyangel said:

OP I get the sense you're not really big on confrontation and your employee knows it. My swift response to that message would have been "Sorry, you must have misunderstood me. Remaining on furlough full time is not an option. You can either return to work part time and furlough part time or go on unpaid leave".  I'm with others on this - sounds like he has no valid reason. His reply was disrespectful imo.  

I agree with sending him a letter stating he will be required to attend work from 1st July. There's a few ways you can play it. You could say he's required to resume work from 1st July at x time and if he does not return, he will be placed on unpaid leave. Or you could say he's required to resume etc and remind him that non-attendance is a disciplinary matter. 

You would also set out the reason for your decision - particularly if the business is struggling financially. Such as explaining that despite furlough, keeping him on has a cost to the business and the business simply cannot afford the costs of paying alternative staff and furloughing him. 

I'm not convinced you need to do the last bit.  You don't need to explain to an employee why they need to come to work, none of their business if they company is struggling or not, they need to come to work because their contract of employment expects it

There's a lot of things you don't need to do but can provide helpful/make things smoother. Plus if OP doesn't like confrontation then it can help make it easier for OP.

It also helps show the employer acted reasonably throughout - should it ever develop into a grievance or ET. 

unholyangel

kingfisherblue said:

Why are people suggesting unpaid leave? The employer has already stated that they need the employee to work, so if the employee refuses, unpaid leave does not have to be offered as an alternative. Instead, the disciplinary procedure should be started. The OP does not want an employee on unpaid leave - he/she wants her employee to work. It has been stated that business is picking up, hence the need for the employee to attend work. Unpaid leave is not necessarily an option, and should not be offered in my opinion.

Because all he has to do is claim he was refusing to attend for health & safety reasons and the OP is potentially looking at a tribunal. 

Safer option is unpaid leave. 

calcotti

unholyangel said:

kingfisherblue said:

Why are people suggesting unpaid leave? The employer has already stated that they need the employee to work, so if the employee refuses, unpaid leave does not have to be offered as an alternative. Instead, the disciplinary procedure should be started. The OP does not want an employee on unpaid leave - he/she wants her employee to work. It has been stated that business is picking up, hence the need for the employee to attend work. Unpaid leave is not necessarily an option, and should not be offered in my opinion.

Because all he has to do is claim he was refusing to attend for health & safety reasons and the OP is potentially looking at a tribunal. 

Safer option is unpaid leave. 

But then OP needs to employ somebody else and when first employee decides they feel like coming back to work OP has too many staff and has the stress of having to make somebody redundant. Making people redundant is one of the most upsetting things I have ever done.

Jeremy535897

calcotti said:

unholyangel said:

kingfisherblue said:

Why are people suggesting unpaid leave? The employer has already stated that they need the employee to work, so if the employee refuses, unpaid leave does not have to be offered as an alternative. Instead, the disciplinary procedure should be started. The OP does not want an employee on unpaid leave - he/she wants her employee to work. It has been stated that business is picking up, hence the need for the employee to attend work. Unpaid leave is not necessarily an option, and should not be offered in my opinion.

Because all he has to do is claim he was refusing to attend for health & safety reasons and the OP is potentially looking at a tribunal. 

Safer option is unpaid leave. 

But then OP needs to employ somebody else and when first employee decides they feel like coming back to work OP has too many staff and has the stress of having to make somebody redundant. Making people redundant is one of the most upsetting things I have ever done.

100% agree with that sentiment. It's a horrible thing to have to do.

Grumpy_chap

Hopefully the OP got some useful comments and will come back here on Monday with an update how it all went.  So long as we did not frighten her away.

unholyangel

calcotti said:

unholyangel said:

kingfisherblue said:

Why are people suggesting unpaid leave? The employer has already stated that they need the employee to work, so if the employee refuses, unpaid leave does not have to be offered as an alternative. Instead, the disciplinary procedure should be started. The OP does not want an employee on unpaid leave - he/she wants her employee to work. It has been stated that business is picking up, hence the need for the employee to attend work. Unpaid leave is not necessarily an option, and should not be offered in my opinion.

Because all he has to do is claim he was refusing to attend for health & safety reasons and the OP is potentially looking at a tribunal. 

Safer option is unpaid leave. 

But then OP needs to employ somebody else and when first employee decides they feel like coming back to work OP has too many staff and has the stress of having to make somebody redundant. Making people redundant is one of the most upsetting things I have ever done.

Or, they take someone on under a zero hours contract/casual basis. 

No redundancy required unless this goes on for 2 years. 

Coveredinbees!!!!

I got the call on Thursday and was back at work on Monday, I didn't think refusal was an option.

calcotti

unholyangel said:

calcotti said:

unholyangel said:

kingfisherblue said:

Why are people suggesting unpaid leave? The employer has already stated that they need the employee to work, so if the employee refuses, unpaid leave does not have to be offered as an alternative. Instead, the disciplinary procedure should be started. The OP does not want an employee on unpaid leave - he/she wants her employee to work. It has been stated that business is picking up, hence the need for the employee to attend work. Unpaid leave is not necessarily an option, and should not be offered in my opinion.

Because all he has to do is claim he was refusing to attend for health & safety reasons and the OP is potentially looking at a tribunal. 

Safer option is unpaid leave. 

But then OP needs to employ somebody else and when first employee decides they feel like coming back to work OP has too many staff and has the stress of having to make somebody redundant. Making people redundant is one of the most upsetting things I have ever done.

Or, they take someone on under a zero hours contract/casual basis. 

No redundancy required unless this goes on for 2 years. 

I used the term loosely, I was highlighting that as an employer having to tell people they have employed that they are no longer required is distressing. I realise it would not be a formal redundancy process in the context.

unholyangel

calcotti said:

unholyangel said:

calcotti said:

unholyangel said:

kingfisherblue said:

Why are people suggesting unpaid leave? The employer has already stated that they need the employee to work, so if the employee refuses, unpaid leave does not have to be offered as an alternative. Instead, the disciplinary procedure should be started. The OP does not want an employee on unpaid leave - he/she wants her employee to work. It has been stated that business is picking up, hence the need for the employee to attend work. Unpaid leave is not necessarily an option, and should not be offered in my opinion.

Because all he has to do is claim he was refusing to attend for health & safety reasons and the OP is potentially looking at a tribunal. 

Safer option is unpaid leave. 

But then OP needs to employ somebody else and when first employee decides they feel like coming back to work OP has too many staff and has the stress of having to make somebody redundant. Making people redundant is one of the most upsetting things I have ever done.

Or, they take someone on under a zero hours contract/casual basis. 

No redundancy required unless this goes on for 2 years. 

I used the term loosely, I was highlighting that as an employer having to tell people they have employed that they are no longer required is distressing. I realise it would not be a formal redundancy process in the context.

Yeah but my point is that in these circumstances, the employer can extend a contract to a new employee on the understanding it is only temporary. In fact, given the circumstances, it may suit a student (final high school years, college or uni) to give them a bit of income during the holidays. 

I also suspect the current employee might feel differently about staying at home if he's not being paid for the privilege. 
 

Grumpy_chap

I think, especially at the moment, there will be many people glad of some temporary work doing anything.
I would be.