Employer doesn't want me to work from home

Jeremy535897

unforeseen said:

Iamdebtfree said:

I think it's preposterous. Government guidance is clear. It says 'MUST work from home if you can'. OP can and did work from home yet is now expected to pointlessly needlessly risk their life purely because some idiot boss is power tripping. 

My husband's uncle died of Corona last week. His wife is positive and terrified.

A job, for most, is just some nonsense you get out of the way in order to feed and clothe yourself and have a roof above your head.

I've been working from home since mid March - my entire company has, literally all of us, bosses included. I'd be beyond furious if made to go into the office. Furious and helpless..

Unbelievable. 

I don't have any advice, just outraged on their behalf.

Government guidance might say "must" but that is not what the legislation says. 
Legislation trumps guidance. 

In this case, the legislation says (see my earlier post):
"Exception 2: work, voluntary services, education and training etc (4) Exception 2 is that it is reasonably necessary for P to leave or be outside P’s home— (a) for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for P to work, or to provide those services, from home; (b) for the purposes of education or training; "

TheAble

If you can WFH then you should be allowed to. I'm with the op on this one.

warby68

Surely this is all down to constructive discussion with the employer. OP only refers to asking 'why' earlier this year and being told 'to answer phones'. The current situation is new and only a day old. Its not unreasonable that a further chat should be had.
I very much doubt anyone going to work is going to be in trouble with the police unless there is some blatant other behaviour drawing attention to it and employers can have different needs now than they did at the start of all this. It would be very easy for the employer to find a business reason if anyone did ask. Everyone was more willing to support measures earlier on than they are now if there is adverse performance and financial impact - businesses can only absorb so much.
I sympathise with OP if employer really IS just being awkward but small businesses do often need all hands on deck and there has to be some bigger picture thinking about preserving business and jobs for the long term.
If its a small office and efforts have been made to make it 'covid secure' then hopefully there aren't too many contact points with others for OP to worry about.
Its all very well quoting legislation and rules but not so easy for an employee, possibly quite junior, to challenge the 'boss' in this way but a reasonable chat about concerns and compromise should be within reach, especially if OP has good answers to whatever the employer's concerns are. OP can simply say  they are worried about the police and being questioned now the instructions have gone from 'should' to 'must' WFH - boss can reconsider or give them a suggested response.

Galloglass

reasonably necessary

"Reasonableness" is a legal device which essentially throws the decision into the courts and for them to decide based on the facts of an individual case. To test the "reasonableness" of the company's decision would require the OP to take action at a Tribunal - after following the internal processes within the company.

It's that simple.

poppy12345

Anamox said:

poppy12345 said:

Anamox said:

Barny1979 said:

Maybe the OP's productivity and output dropped, so the employer has concerns?

Whilst we're making assumptions that are in no way connected to anything the OP has said: maybe the employer is now worried about aliens attacking the office and wants OP to guard it?

You can make all the assumptions you want but if the employer decides they don't want them working from home they need to go into work.

but just stating the OP is unreasonable/a lazy home worker/should just lay down and take it is hardly helpful or respectful.

FYI i never once stated this in any of my replies! If you think diffferently then please go ahead and quote exactly where i said this.

Jeremy535897

Galloglass said:

reasonably necessary

"Reasonableness" is a legal device which essentially throws the decision into the courts and for them to decide based on the facts of an individual case. To test the "reasonableness" of the company's decision would require the OP to take action at a Tribunal - after following the internal processes within the company.

It's that simple.

I'm not sure. This is not really an employment law issue. A good employer should be ensuring workers work from home where it is reasonably possible for them to do so. Where they worked from home in the first lockdown, it is reasonable to expect employers who want to make workers come into the workplace to justify their decision. Of course the problem lies with the fact that, in the current economic situation, the power mostly lies with the employer, and in the end the employer can decide to let an employee go, at which point the legislation around redundancy and unfair dismissal comes into play.

Aranyani

Galloglass said:

reasonably necessary

"Reasonableness" is a legal device which essentially throws the decision into the courts and for them to decide based on the facts of an individual case. To test the "reasonableness" of the company's decision would require the OP to take action at a Tribunal - after following the internal processes within the company.

It's that simple.

Its irrelevant in this case though, the OP is clinically extremely vulnerable, the guidance is very clear that they should not be going to work at all.  Even if the employer might prefer them to be in the office in this case they are being highly irresponsible by expecting it.

gary83

Aranyani said:

Galloglass said:

reasonably necessary

"Reasonableness" is a legal device which essentially throws the decision into the courts and for them to decide based on the facts of an individual case. To test the "reasonableness" of the company's decision would require the OP to take action at a Tribunal - after following the internal processes within the company.

It's that simple.

Its irrelevant in this case though, the OP is clinically extremely vulnerable, the guidance is very clear that they should not be going to work at all.  Even if the employer might prefer them to be in the office in this case they are being highly irresponsible by expecting it.

When it comes down to it though with a letter the OP would be eligible for SSP, but then they’d complain (not unjustifiably) that they need more than £94 a week, if the employer doesn’t want to allow them to work from home and  won’t furlough then that’s the only entitlement.

Barny1979

Aranyani said:

Galloglass said:

reasonably necessary

"Reasonableness" is a legal device which essentially throws the decision into the courts and for them to decide based on the facts of an individual case. To test the "reasonableness" of the company's decision would require the OP to take action at a Tribunal - after following the internal processes within the company.

It's that simple.

Its irrelevant in this case though, the OP is clinically extremely vulnerable, the guidance is very clear that they should not be going to work at all.  Even if the employer might prefer them to be in the office in this case they are being highly irresponsible by expecting it.

OP is clinically extremely vulnerable, can you point this out, as I've missed them saying this.

Mrsn

Barny1979 said:

Aranyani said:

Galloglass said:

reasonably necessary

"Reasonableness" is a legal device which essentially throws the decision into the courts and for them to decide based on the facts of an individual case. To test the "reasonableness" of the company's decision would require the OP to take action at a Tribunal - after following the internal processes within the company.

It's that simple.

Its irrelevant in this case though, the OP is clinically extremely vulnerable, the guidance is very clear that they should not be going to work at all.  Even if the employer might prefer them to be in the office in this case they are being highly irresponsible by expecting it.

OP is clinically extremely vulnerable, can you point this out, as I've missed them saying this.

I believe the confusion about OP starts half way on page 4.... but they have never said they are but more concerned about their workplace in general and using public transport.