Employer doesn't want me to work from home

unforeseen

There may well have been functions that could only be done in the office. 
We are very shy on facts apart from 'I want to work from home' and 'I did last time' 
I find it strange that in a small company op was employed solely to answer the phone and possibly do a bit of typing. I think there may well be other office based tasks that were covered differently in the first lockdown that the employer now wants the op to start doing again, or as the op alludes to multiple people in the office (desks close together and facing each other) the other person was in for lockdown 1 doing the other tasks and is now being allowed to WFH so OP is now required in work. 

Aranyani

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.

Huh, you're right.  

My apologies I must have been mixing it up with another thread. 

poppy12345

All these comments and the OP hasn't even replied, despite being active yesterday.

JamoLew

OPs other thread also states that they are the only employee that has been on  furlough  (part time) since April. (I assume from comments here that the work portion was WFH)
Maybe the employer is having to also deal with the other 3 employees as well and is trying to be fair all around ?
The employers reasonable adjustments may include having the other 3 employees WFH and the OP alone in the office
There is a significant lack of relevant information that isn't being divulged as it probably changes the rhetoric of the OPs "concerns"

unholyangel

Grumpy_chap said:

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".

I asked where it said reasonableness in government guidance (wfh due to covid) since I had only commented on the guidance, in response to the OP focusing on that guidance. 

unforeseen

If the workplace qualifies as 'covid secure' that meets the H&S requirement the the employer has done everything that is reasonably practicable. 
That side of things had already been covered in the first lockdown