Employer doesn't want me to work from home

unholyangel

The issue is the woolly wording, as is typical of governments. 

"able to work from home" or "must work from home if you are able to do so"....great.....does that mean able to with existing infrastructure? Or able to as in physically possible to put into place the infrastructure/policies? Or does it mean if you're able to in a cost effective way? Or perhaps it means able to if your employer allows you to? No way to say for certain, particularly with it only being guidance. 

Yeah the OP can refuse to go in or leave if already in, if they feel there is a health & safety issue. But depending on circumstances, it could lead to dismissal.  Sure OP can take the employer to a tribunal, but no guarantee of a win and that's months away, with bills piling up in the meantime. 

I said a while ago (and have repeated) that I suspected a lot of people were going to have to choose between an unfair or even illegal situation and not having a job. It's by no means fair. But it's an employer's market right now so unless they have some very niche skills or are a leader/renowned in their field, they're probably going to want to grin & bear it for the time being. 

Galloglass

The issue is the woolly wording

The wording isn't wooly, it clearly indicates there has to be "reasonableness". The clarity around that term, whether it be employment law or any other branch of law, is resolved by going to court after exhausting the pre-court protocols.

The OP has never stated they are clinically vulnerable and if they were, they would have had a shielding letter. There is nothing in this thread or the OP's other thread that mentions the letter. 

The OP has to engage with the employer, decide what are the alternatives and decide if the want to test "reasonableness"

Barny1979

unholyangel said:

The issue is the woolly wording, as is typical of governments. 

It has to be to fit all scenarios and allow businesses to determine themselves, rather than all staff running off home, even though they may not be able to do their job from home. 

Thrugelmir

unholyangel said:

The issue is the woolly wording, as is typical of governments. 

The Nanny state cannot run everyone's individual lives. As much as some wish they could. Simply not practical. Not that politicians these days are capable of running much directly.  Simply not the experience nor the aptitude in general. 

TheAble

OP do you not have the ability to answer the phone remotely from home? If you do then there's no reason I can see why you should be going into the office.

68ComebackSpecial

TheAble said:

OP do you not have the ability to answer the phone remotely from home? If you do then there's no reason I can see why you should be going into the office.

That would assume that the OPs sole role is to answer the phone. From their first post they say that they worked from home in the Spring, which would suggest that they have returned to the office since then, and without issue. If there are duties which can only be performed from the office then there doesn't appear to be any issue as they have been performing them for several months. 

Dr_Crypto

It’s really very easy. The OP can either comply with their employer’s request or decline. If they decline they are calling the boss’s bluff. The boss can either commence conduct proceedings which may end in dismissal or back down. If the OP is dismissed they can appeal to an employment tribunal and expect a listing some point in 2022. In the mean time they need to find a job that will allow
them to WFH in the midst of a recession in which hundreds of thousands of workers are being laid off. 

The question is “are you feeling lucky? Well are you, punk?”

unholyangel

Galloglass said:

The issue is the woolly wording

The wording isn't wooly, it clearly indicates there has to be "reasonableness". The clarity around that term, whether it be employment law or any other branch of law, is resolved by going to court after exhausting the pre-court protocols.

The OP has never stated they are clinically vulnerable and if they were, they would have had a shielding letter. There is nothing in this thread or the OP's other thread that mentions the letter. 

The OP has to engage with the employer, decide what are the alternatives and decide if the want to test "reasonableness"

Show me where the government guidance says there has to be reasonableness. There won't be any court interpretation around government guidance, only law. 

No idea what the rest about clinically vulnerable means since I never said or alluded to it. Health & safety isn't limited to those who are shielding or even those who are high risk. 

Barny1979 said:

unholyangel said:

The issue is the woolly wording, as is typical of governments. 

It has to be to fit all scenarios and allow businesses to determine themselves, rather than all staff running off home, even though they may not be able to do their job from home. 

I quite literally just said that it was woolly wording and that it's typical of governments. I didn't elaborate on the why or make any comment in criticism or support of the practice. Nice to see you agree though.

Thrugelmir said:

unholyangel said:

The issue is the woolly wording, as is typical of governments. 

The Nanny state cannot run everyone's individual lives. As much as some wish they could. Simply not practical. Not that politicians these days are capable of running much directly.  Simply not the experience nor the aptitude in general. 

Didn't say they had to or that I wanted them to. I was responding to the point made consistently by OP and one or two others throughout the thread that "government guidance says" and I'm highlighting that it's worded in a way that it's nowhere near clear that they meant "work at home no matter the cost, obstacles or what your employer says". But if you only read that one single line out of my whole post, I can see how that would cause confusion for you. 

Jeremy535897

The government guidance is only interpretation of the legislation, which I have already posted twice on this thread:
Paragraph 6(4) Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (England) (No 4):
"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;"

See https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1200/pdfs/uksi_20201200_en.pdf

Grumpy_chap

unholyangel said:

Show me where the government guidance says there has to be reasonableness. There won't be any court interpretation around government guidance, only law.

This comes from the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, which requires that "employers must do everything that is 
reasonably practicable".

There are many court decisions around the interpretation of "reasonably practicable".