Employee refusing certain contracts due to Covid
Discussion
Bit of an odd one I was going to tack on to another recent post but it's vanished.
My company provides office services to a range of clients where we visit and do our thing on a fortnightly basis. My staff can visit up to a dozen clients' offices a day and look after their stuff; the work is organised in geographical packets of a day each and they are permanently allocated to a staff member. By it's nature this is not something we can do from home, but we are going to great lengths to work safely.
So for example Fred goes to Smith's Widgets every other Tuesday on his Trumpton day.
In the past year we have gone from shutting down completely to gradually getting back to ~85% of our clients, the remaining 15% being either closed or unwilling to let us in due to Covid.
For the first time since March one of our clients (let's say Smith's Widgets) has allowed us back in but said we now need to be escorted round by a facilities guy. It's quite high security so I have three staff and myself who were allowed in unescorted previously. One of the reasons given (oddly) was that there has been 'quite a lot of Covid in here so we don't want you just wandering around'.
Fred has come back today saying having been told this he is not prepared to visit Smith's Widgets until Covid is not a thing any more. In his defence he looks after his elderly father every night so I can see his point.
(This is the first time this has happened by the way; normally we are keen to resume our contracts with clinets but they don't want to let us in)
This means Fred can't do his Trumpton rota, as the work is organised in day sized packets so I have to reallocate it to a colleague.
My company is quite keen to make use of flexible furlough system and someone at Head Office has suggested I flexi-furlough him one day a fortnight.
My contention is that I then have to get one of the other two staff with clearance to do Trumpton rota and both have equally valid reasons to say no, so it'll end up being me doing it. Therefore I think it's entirely fair to reduce Fred's working days (and pay) by one day a fortnight until he is happy to recommence.
I don't think it's particularly fair to the rest of the team to let one person pick and choose their duties without consequence, and I think it will set a dangerous precedent. I should add that most of my staff are pretty mature, and most would be quite happy to be parked on furlough, so this would be no kind of stick.
At the moment I've kicked the can down the road as the need to resume duties at Smith's Widgets isn't urgent yet, though the sooner we start the sooner we can start charging them again.
Thoughts? Please note I am one up from grunt level but at present don't have a manager between me and the owner of the company, so I have neither power nor authority, but lots of responsibility. So company policy is not within my gift.
TL;DR - member of staff wants to pick and choose duties due to Covid risk and be furloughed when they should be doing it..
My company provides office services to a range of clients where we visit and do our thing on a fortnightly basis. My staff can visit up to a dozen clients' offices a day and look after their stuff; the work is organised in geographical packets of a day each and they are permanently allocated to a staff member. By it's nature this is not something we can do from home, but we are going to great lengths to work safely.
So for example Fred goes to Smith's Widgets every other Tuesday on his Trumpton day.
In the past year we have gone from shutting down completely to gradually getting back to ~85% of our clients, the remaining 15% being either closed or unwilling to let us in due to Covid.
For the first time since March one of our clients (let's say Smith's Widgets) has allowed us back in but said we now need to be escorted round by a facilities guy. It's quite high security so I have three staff and myself who were allowed in unescorted previously. One of the reasons given (oddly) was that there has been 'quite a lot of Covid in here so we don't want you just wandering around'.
Fred has come back today saying having been told this he is not prepared to visit Smith's Widgets until Covid is not a thing any more. In his defence he looks after his elderly father every night so I can see his point.
(This is the first time this has happened by the way; normally we are keen to resume our contracts with clinets but they don't want to let us in)
This means Fred can't do his Trumpton rota, as the work is organised in day sized packets so I have to reallocate it to a colleague.
My company is quite keen to make use of flexible furlough system and someone at Head Office has suggested I flexi-furlough him one day a fortnight.
My contention is that I then have to get one of the other two staff with clearance to do Trumpton rota and both have equally valid reasons to say no, so it'll end up being me doing it. Therefore I think it's entirely fair to reduce Fred's working days (and pay) by one day a fortnight until he is happy to recommence.
I don't think it's particularly fair to the rest of the team to let one person pick and choose their duties without consequence, and I think it will set a dangerous precedent. I should add that most of my staff are pretty mature, and most would be quite happy to be parked on furlough, so this would be no kind of stick.
At the moment I've kicked the can down the road as the need to resume duties at Smith's Widgets isn't urgent yet, though the sooner we start the sooner we can start charging them again.
Thoughts? Please note I am one up from grunt level but at present don't have a manager between me and the owner of the company, so I have neither power nor authority, but lots of responsibility. So company policy is not within my gift.
TL;DR - member of staff wants to pick and choose duties due to Covid risk and be furloughed when they should be doing it..
Johnnytheboy said:
TL;DR - member of staff wants to pick and choose duties due to Covid risk and be furloughed when they should be doing it..
That's not the summary I got from reading your post...?Member of staff has been told there has (potentially) been a large number of covid cases in a single workplace and is unhappy visiting the premises because it may put his elderly father at risk.
Your company is keen to make the use of flexible furlough, your company is making the suggestion to furlough him for an allocated amount of time every week.
Agreed your tl;dr sounds inaccurate. I got the impression the employee is happy working, just reluctant to go to this one site in particular.
If covid is spreading at this place then they aren't doing something right in terms of PPE/distancing/cleaning/etc. It sounds like he's right to be concerned as if he goes in, catches it, and then looks after his dad, he may kill him.
Do you need to start work in what is possibly a covid hotspot? It'd make sense to me to say that you can't enter the premises. Is the work essential? Sounds like it isn't, from what you are saying.
You're right that agreeing for him to not go there will set a precedent. Can you provide assurance that the office is going to keep him distanced, he will be operating in a clean environment, and will you/they supply him with adequate PPE? Have you done risk assessments for the sites you attend?
Any assurance you need to give him will apply to anyone you're expecting to work at this place really.
If covid is spreading at this place then they aren't doing something right in terms of PPE/distancing/cleaning/etc. It sounds like he's right to be concerned as if he goes in, catches it, and then looks after his dad, he may kill him.
Do you need to start work in what is possibly a covid hotspot? It'd make sense to me to say that you can't enter the premises. Is the work essential? Sounds like it isn't, from what you are saying.
You're right that agreeing for him to not go there will set a precedent. Can you provide assurance that the office is going to keep him distanced, he will be operating in a clean environment, and will you/they supply him with adequate PPE? Have you done risk assessments for the sites you attend?
Any assurance you need to give him will apply to anyone you're expecting to work at this place really.
ETA just had this advice from the HR consultant we use:
Which seems quite reasonable to me.
My concern is that if Fred decides he doesn't want to do something, the company pushes me to furlough him, I then have to offer it to one of the other two vetted staff who can then refuse to do it (do I then furlough them too?) and it ends up with me making a choice between either doing it myself or just telling the client we don't want their money.
Then as I am a very minor cog in the machine, taking the blame for the loss of a client.
And then Fred and the other staff decide this is a good way of getting furloughed instead of doing other rounds they don't like and I end up doing all their work or losing it.
Annoyingly, out of my team of six staff I have two that are utterly without jobsworth tendencies, and would willingly take on the Trumpton rota, but neither of them at present have the current clearance to do so.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to put one of them forward for vetting...
As I said above I've rather defly kicked the can down the road so I have a good month to worry about it.
They said:
This is a complex situation and will be dependent upon many factors including:
The risk assessment undertaken
What steps have been taken by the business and client to reduce the risk
Appropriate level of PPP and other arrangements
Whether the employee will be exposed to any or many staff when doing the site visit
Health concerns (there may be underlying health issues)
What conversations have been had with the member of staff around their concerns and how to resolve their concerns
Whether they could be put on another ‘job’ if others more comfortable.
Ultimately, we would need to assess the whole base of facts, but if there is limited risk, it has been properly risk assessed, safety measures in place, there is no underlining health issues or perhaps those they live with, and you have taken reasonable steps to discuss it with them, then the business could potentially enforce duties (but with caution).
The risk assessment undertaken
What steps have been taken by the business and client to reduce the risk
Appropriate level of PPP and other arrangements
Whether the employee will be exposed to any or many staff when doing the site visit
Health concerns (there may be underlying health issues)
What conversations have been had with the member of staff around their concerns and how to resolve their concerns
Whether they could be put on another ‘job’ if others more comfortable.
Ultimately, we would need to assess the whole base of facts, but if there is limited risk, it has been properly risk assessed, safety measures in place, there is no underlining health issues or perhaps those they live with, and you have taken reasonable steps to discuss it with them, then the business could potentially enforce duties (but with caution).
Which seems quite reasonable to me.
My concern is that if Fred decides he doesn't want to do something, the company pushes me to furlough him, I then have to offer it to one of the other two vetted staff who can then refuse to do it (do I then furlough them too?) and it ends up with me making a choice between either doing it myself or just telling the client we don't want their money.
Then as I am a very minor cog in the machine, taking the blame for the loss of a client.
And then Fred and the other staff decide this is a good way of getting furloughed instead of doing other rounds they don't like and I end up doing all their work or losing it.
Annoyingly, out of my team of six staff I have two that are utterly without jobsworth tendencies, and would willingly take on the Trumpton rota, but neither of them at present have the current clearance to do so.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to put one of them forward for vetting...
As I said above I've rather defly kicked the can down the road so I have a good month to worry about it.
There are lots of things going on here. The stand out thing to me is that a client has admitted that there may be or has been a covid issue at their site. Take this out of the equation and their isn't a problem. If I knew a site had a potential covid issue I would not go. Nothing can be covid secure but risks can be minimised, unfortunately in some case not by enough, which is why a lot of business is closed.
Brainpox said:
Agreed your tl;dr sounds inaccurate. I got the impression the employee is happy working, just reluctant to go to this one site in particular.
That's accurate - I summarised quickly because a delivery turned up 
Brainpox said:
If covid is spreading at this place then they aren't doing something right in terms of PPE/distancing/cleaning/etc. It sounds like he's right to be concerned as if he goes in, catches it, and then looks after his dad, he may kill him.
Smith's Widgets are actually a public sector organisation who can't really work from home. I should add that all I know is the guy on the front desk telling my staff member and him telling me. I am not annoyed with Fred, I think he is being entirely reasonable; what I don't want to do is start a trend of everyone picking their own contracts. I did point out to him that this may end up with him being docked a day's pay a fortnight and he didn't recoil in horror. Brainpox said:
Do you need to start work in what is possibly a covid hotspot? It'd make sense to me to say that you can't enter the premises. Is the work essential? Sounds like it isn't, from what you are saying.
No, which is how I've kicked the can down the road. My contact for the site is woeful at responding to emails, so I have sent her an email saying "we won't be coming in for now unless I hear from you that you believe Smith's Widgets is a safe place for us to work" rather than asking the same thing, if that makes sense. Normqally our job involves stopping live things dying, but as we've not been in for nearly a year almost everything has died so we are waiting for aforementioned useless contact to authorise us putting new live things in, so my suggestion was we hold off on doing that. Brainpox said:
You're right that agreeing for him to not go there will set a precedent. Can you provide assurance that the office is going to keep him distanced, he will be operating in a clean environment, and will you/they supply him with adequate PPE? Have you done risk assessments for the sites you attend?
Yes, yes, yes, yes. We are a very 'by the book' company. Brainpox said:
Any assurance you need to give him will apply to anyone you're expecting to work at this place really.
Agreed. I am always scrupulous about treating everyone the same. This is why I am contemplating being what may seem harsh with Fred, purely so I can do the same to his colleagues, one in particular who will take any opportunity to do less work.
MonkeyMatt said:
There are lots of things going on here. The stand out thing to me is that a client has admitted that there may be or has been a covid issue at their site. Take this out of the equation and their isn't a problem. If I knew a site had a potential covid issue I would not go. Nothing can be covid secure but risks can be minimised, unfortunately in some case not by enough, which is why a lot of business is closed.
As above the client has said no such thing, a random front desk monkey has told Fred can no longer work unescorted because they've had quite a few cases. Even though I had already told Fred that he had to be escorted, he decided to go and ask at the site's front door himself for some reason.Johnnytheboy said:
MonkeyMatt said:
There are lots of things going on here. The stand out thing to me is that a client has admitted that there may be or has been a covid issue at their site. Take this out of the equation and their isn't a problem. If I knew a site had a potential covid issue I would not go. Nothing can be covid secure but risks can be minimised, unfortunately in some case not by enough, which is why a lot of business is closed.
As above the client has said no such thing, a random front desk monkey has told Fred can no longer work unescorted because they've had quite a few cases. Even though I had already told Fred that he had to be escorted, he decided to go and ask at the site's front door himself for some reason.Johnnytheboy said:
What if the next person says no?
And the next?
I end up doing it.
What happens when next similar scenario occurs?
Ditto.
What if that doesn’t happen?And the next?
I end up doing it.
What happens when next similar scenario occurs?
Ditto.
At the moment you have a problem and a solution. Solve the problem, and deal with other problems if they come to pass.
Don’t fail to solve this problem because maybe, possibly, there might be other problems in the future. They’ve not happened yet...
Bikesalot said:
Johnnytheboy said:
TL;DR - member of staff wants to pick and choose duties due to Covid risk and be furloughed when they should be doing it..
That's not the summary I got from reading your post...?Member of staff has been told there has (potentially) been a large number of covid cases in a single workplace and is unhappy visiting the premises because it may put his elderly father at risk.
Your company is keen to make the use of flexible furlough, your company is making the suggestion to furlough him for an allocated amount of time every week.
Edited by NordicCrankShaft on Thursday 14th January 20:43
There will be times over Covid that we will have customers wanting us to visit site. I've had my boss call me and say if I don't think I can safely visit a site or it will cause issues at home to call him and see what alternative arrangements can be made. As it happens, unless I'm trapped in a room full of disease-mongers coughing in my face I don't mind going to site, but I think it was very good of him to offer.
NordicCrankShaft said:
Not only that but wording it so that putting him on Furlough sounds like it's a lu ishment for not wanting to risk his health even though they've admittedly said they know he looks after his elderly father every evening..........Nice!!!!
To put it another way, he thinks he can offload bits of his jobs he doesn't want onto his colleagues.... Nice!!! But as I say, he's not completely averse to the idea of having his days reduced, I'm far more worried about the knock on effects on the behaviour of the rest of my team if what I want to do is overruled.
Incidentally all, I've just been chatting about this to my OH (who is a head of HR) and she agreed that - providing both my client and my firm are following all our Covid safety procedures correctly, which we are - then I'm entirely within my rights to reduce his hours, and that this situation is not what the furlough scheme is for.
tighnamara said:
What is a “random front desk monkey” ?
I'm trying very hard not to allude to the nature of the client in question, so let's say security guard/receptionist. tighnamara said:
Why would Fred not be allowed to ask why they are now being escorted on site ?
My point was that (as is normally the case) the business relationship between a supplier and a client is often handled by other people than Fred who does the actual work and the receptionist/security guard/monkey at the client's site. Prior to Christmas I had been instructed by my contact that Fred was only to attend site if he could secure an escort from a related site (this is a bit too complex to explain) as he wasn't allowed to go in unescorted anymore, as Smith's Widgets had given some thought to their Covid procedures, and that if no escort was available he was to leave. But (and he has form for not doing what he is asked...) he decided to take matters in to his own hands, and now we are where we are. tighnamara said:
I can see your dilemma but surely Fred can ask such a question without being questioned on his reasoning.
If there has been an outbreak on site it’s probably good he asked.
Yes, and at the risk of repeating myself again, in no way am I considering that Fred is 'in trouble'; it's more that I need to deal with this occurrence in a way that enables me to deal with any similar ones in a consistent way that is fair to all of Fred's colleagues.If there has been an outbreak on site it’s probably good he asked.
My main question and reason for starting this thread was to ask whether the good burghers of PH thought it was acceptable to reduce someone's working days if they refused to carry out part of their job if both supplier (us) and Smith's Widgets had done everything in their power to provide a safe working environment, especially with my fear that if it wasn't then it would set a difficult precedent.
As I have been assured that subject to doing everything right (see my second post), my employer, their HR consultant and my head of HR OH all advise me that I am quite within my rights to do so, I am reasonably content.
Johnnytheboy said:
For the first time since March one of our clients (let's say Smith's Widgets) has allowed us back in but said we now need to be escorted round by a facilities guy. It's quite high security so I have three staff and myself who were allowed in unescorted previously. One of the reasons given (oddly) was that there has been 'quite a lot of Covid in here so we don't want you just wandering around'.
Doesn't really help, but i'd say they're talking b
ks, some paranoid individual has put an ill thought out rule in place to protect themselves from potential covid carriers and/or is using covid as an excuse to solve the likely non-existent problem of people moving around without an escort. I'm sure they've made themselves look very "pro active" with their little empire building strategy.Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff