F.A.Q

The FIFA Men’s World Cup kicks-off on 20 November with 32 nations competing and will last until 18 December.

Below are some top tips for managing staff during the tournament.

Sporting events policy
During this time, if you have one, you can rely on an existing policy covering sporting events. If not, let me know and I can provide a policy template.

Workplace distractions
Kick-off times vary; however a number of games will be played during business hours and staff may become distracted. To mitigate this you could consider blocking internet access however a more conducive approach may be to make staff aware of the scores or a TV could be placed in the staff room allowing staff to watch games during their break.

Bullying and harassment
We all know that some football fans are very passionate about the game but his must not be allowed to get out of hand.

Organisations should also be wary of staff making offensive sexist remarks during the tournament, ensuring there is an appropriate grievance reporting procedure in place and that instances of harassment are handled seriously.

Employees wanting to watch events
The decision for who gets to watch should be made fairly. If you can show events during work and allow staff to time their breaks around particular matches then do so. Some may ask to work at different times in order to see their favourite team.

Processes for submitting annual leave requests should be clearly outlined in organisational policies and employees should be reminded of these rules.

Employers may want to inform staff that attendance levels will be monitored during the tournament, to deter those who may be thinking of taking a day off anyway. Employees should be aware that any unauthorised absences will be classed as a form of misconduct that can result in disciplinary action.

Employers might consider embracing the tournament at work, using it as a way of developing a greater sense of morale and camaraderie. Attendance at work can be encouraged by holding a sweep stake, food, or lunch-time games, and live notification of results.

Employees engaging in “banter”
There are likely to be employees of different nationalities represented in the World Cup within the workplace. Whilst this can lead to light-hearted rivalry, careful monitoring is needed to ensure no offence is caused; this can be an emotive topic.

To avoid the potential for discrimination or harassment, employers should be careful to treat all employees in the same way regardless of nationality. Employers should also ensure that the workplace remains free from banter that could qualify as harassment or discrimination, through reminders of rules in place.

Managing alcohol
Alcohol and sporting events, for many, go hand in hand. A clear alcohol policy is needed, notifying employees of expectations, and warning that breaking these rules could lead to disciplinary action

Source: CIPD

The monkeypox virus may have emerged in the UK, but experts have said it is “not another Covid” and have urged employers to follow official guidance.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) found the symptoms for most people have been mild, only causing severe illness in some cases such as young children, pregnant women, and individuals who are immunocompromised.

If someone is infected with monkeypox, it usually takes between 5 and 21 days for the first symptoms to appear. These include a high temperature, a headache, muscle aches, backache, swollen glands, shivering (chills) and exhaustion.

In the early stages, a rash (which can be confused with chickenpox) often begins on the face, then spreads to other parts of the body.
Confirmed cases should be treated under normal sickness rules.

However, issues could arise where an employee is advised to self-isolate. Where possible, if employees can work from home then that should be the solution, however we are back to that issue of sick pay if an employee cannot work remotely.

The rule is statutory sick pay will not be payable for the isolation period unless the employee gets too ill to work during it. This is similar to the current Covid isolation position. The isolation period is 21 days. Employers will have to decide whether they will require close contacts with a confirmed case to not come to work for the 21 days or whether they will still require them to come in.

The situation is different in instances where an employer asks someone who has been in close contact with a confirmed case to stay away from the workplace. In this scenario, failing to provide full pay could lead to claims of unlawful deduction from wages, as it is the employer refusing to allow the employee to work.

So what is best practice? Support workers required to self-isolate or quarantine, and if you can, cover the cost of quarantine. Due to concerns about pay, employees may come into the workplace when they should not.

Alongside enabling workers to work from home and making reasonable adjustments for quarantined workers, you should protect workers from reprisals when reporting potential cases of illness or incidents, such as exposure to the disease.

In the past few months’ sickness absence has become a real problem for a number of my clients.

The reasons vary from long-term sickness absences – are they ever going to return to newly-diagnosed illnesses, such as long COVID - what reasonable adjustments do you need to make, to those having many sporadic days off – are they just taking the Michael?

Client no 1 – just employed a new lady and after 2 weeks in the job advised she was pregnant and presented a fit note for the full term of her pregnancy, stating light duties. I advised my client to consider whether light duties were a possibility, which it was however, it may not always be possible to offer light duties, so the employer would have no option but to place the employee on sick leave.

Client no 2 - a prolific short term absence issue, a third of the workforce (in my view taking the Mick). I reviewed the trigger point system they were using and we have changed this now to the Bradford Score and introduced a new managing sickness and capability policy. They currently have a large number of disciplinary meetings lined up!

Client number 3 - an employee stating various medical issues which have been on-going. They asked for a reduction in hours, which the client agreed to. It didn’t make a difference, sickness absences continued. In these instances you can request a GP’s report and/or an Occupational Health report on this employee to understand more about the medical issues, prognosis and any reasonable adjustments.

An employee does have to give their consent though, but it looks very suspicious if they don’t. Refusal to consent can mean that an employer can make a decision without the benefit of a medical report.

It can take up to 6 weeks to get the GP’s report, and then it may not give much useful information.

Another good tool is to use Occupational Health. These are medical professionals who will do a telephone conversation or a face to face visit with the person in question to work out if they are able to do their job and what reasonable adjustments should/could be made.

One report came back that the employee was not going to be capable of returning to their job and as there were no reasonable alternatives, they were dismissed on medical capability grounds.

Another option is to consider having a without prejudice conversation and offer a settlement agreement if an employee is not going to return because they simply can’t face it. So even though you can’t sack them for being sick, you could consider this as an option.

If there is a Pay in Lieu of Notice (PILON) clause within the contract, the employer can terminate the contract and make payment that represents the money that would have been paid during the notice period.

If there is no PILON clause, then doing this without the employee's agreement would amount to a breach of contract, and hence could lead to a claim of wrongful dismissal. However, if you have paid the employee for the notice period, the employee would actually gain no more money by bringing such a claim. Even so, you should be aware that any dismissal that breaches the contract will mean that post-termination restrictions (eg a restrictive covenant) would not apply.

The short answer is no. It remains your decision if you are going to permit your staff to work from home, regardless of the coronavirus pandemic. In England, provided your workplace is 'COVID-secure', you are able to ask staff to return to the workplace and can even treat their refusal as a conduct issue if it is not reasonable. That said, you should take care in this situation. If staff are able to fully conduct their role from home, permitting them to continue doing so may help you to maintain social distancing in the workplace. You will also need to fully demonstrate, as part of the request procedure, why business need will not permit them to stay at home.

Organisations are urged to keep an “open dialogue” with their staff and respect their concerns about returning to the office after the government announced the remaining coronavirus rules in England will end later this week.

Boris Johnson announced yesterday that all legal restrictions on Covid will come to an end in England on Thursday (24 February), meaning that individuals who test positive for Covid-19 will no longer be legally required to self-isolate.

Individuals who test positive will, for now, still be advised to stay at home for at least five days. However, from 1 April that guidance will also end and instead people with Covid symptoms will be asked to “exercise personal responsibility”.

As part of his ‘Living with Covid’ plan, the prime minister also announced an end to several support packages that were put in place to help individuals self isolate.

The £500 payment for those on low incomes who test positive for Covid-19 will be scrapped from Thursday, along with routine contact tracing, and workers will no longer be required to tell their employers if they have to self-isolate.

From 24 March, employees with Covid will also no longer be eligible for statutory sick pay (SSP) from day-one of their illness – with SSP only being paid on the fourth consecutive day of illness.

And the government will no longer provide universal free testing in England from 1 April. From this date employers will also no longer have to explicitly consider Covid in their risk assessments.

When deciding what rules and guidance to put in place, employers need to be led by the principles of what is fair and reasonable to ask, respecting that many people with vulnerabilities will still be very concerned about coming into places of work.
Firms should continue existing practices to keep workplaces safe, including maintaining good ventilation, cleaning and sanitation.

While many firms will want to continue to ask individuals with Covid to stay at home after the guidance changes, businesses will need a sound business case to explain very clearly why a Covid isolation policy is needed, i.e. to protect vulnerable staff or clients.

Employers will also need to decide whether they want to make testing a requirement going forward – and if so, whether they will provide testing kits to staff – and consider how the changing rules around SSP might affect their business

While the end of the extended SSP scheme for individuals who test positive for Covid could mean lower costs for employers, the end of the SSP Rebate Scheme for smaller employers will also mean some firms will see their SSP bill go up, he said.

Employers should carry out a risk assessment of its offices to identify any specific risk to infection and transmission in that workspace and then take steps to reduce those risks - employers should also consult with individuals reluctant to return to the office.

Under ss 44 and 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996), employees are protected from being subjected to a detriment or being dismissed for exercising their right to leave their workplace. To gain such protection, employees must have a ‘reasonable belief’ that their workplace poses a serious or imminent threat to them or to others which they could not reasonably have been expected to avert, and they left and refused to return to work while the danger persisted.

This will be much harder now with vaccinations and a reduced prevalence of the virus.

Where an employee or worker has genuine concerns, you should listen to them and try to accommodate them where possible. Don't rush into disciplinary action or dismissal.

Make a well informed decision - if you have followed all government guidelines and ensured the risk is minimised for employees, but they still refuse to return, then the business needs to be prepared to conclude a staff member doesn’t have reasonable grounds.

Employers can force people to return to work following the lifting of Covid-19 restrictions if they are contractually obliged to work from a particular location.

Ultimately it could end in the disciplinary action for unreasonable refusal or failure to follow a reasonable management instruction. If they are refusing on the grounds of serious underlying health conditions, then disciplinary action would be risky. If the employee has no reasonable grounds then you can start disciplinary proceedings which could lead to dismissal.