An office-based worker had no option but to resign from her job during the first Covid-19 lockdown after her employer rejected her plea to work remotely from home, according to a ruling from the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).
Adjudication officer Kevin Baneham ordered the employer pay the Operations Co-Ordinator €3,712 compensation for her unfair dismissal on May 12th last.
An employment law expert, Richard Grogan, described the WRC ruling as “a wake-up call’ for employers.
Mr Grogan - who wasn’t involved in the case - said: “The amount of compensation isn’t high as the worker got new a new job within a short space of time, but the findings are important as it is the first ruling that the WRC has made concerning a Covid-19 related unfair or constructive dismissal. I believe that we are going to see an awful lot more of such Covid-19 cases going through the WRC”.
Remote working proposal
In an email to her employer, a university-based Facilities Management Service Provider last April, the worker stated that her employer’s refusal to accept the remote working proposal “has increased the infection risk with COVID-19 for all three Operations Coordinators”.
She stated: “In the event one of us gets sick I will be putting at risk my husband who is an asthmatic patient."
In his ruling, Mr Baneham found that the university-based Operations Co-ordinator had “no real option but to resign” after her employer failed to take reasonably practicable steps to mitigate risk posed by Covid 19 in the workplace.
Mr Baneham found that the employer failed to implement the proposals made by three office workers that would have eliminated the risk of transmission of Covid-19 in the workplace.
'Repudiation of contract'
In his findings, Mr Baneham found that the requirement by the employer that the Operations Co-Ordinator attend the workplace without adequate consideration of the elimination of risk posed by Covid 19 “amounts to repudiation of contract”.
He said: “As an infectious disease, Covid-19 constitutes a biological hazard. In this context and at the centre of this case are the duties of both employer and employee arising from the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act and the underpinning health and safety principles.”
Some 1,000 students were stuck on the campus in March, some of whom were self-isolating and Mr Baneham stated that the worker and her colleagues dealt with the difficult task of managing thousands of students who vacated their accommodation at the start of the lockdown.
Mr Baneham stated that it was striking that the employer did not trial the “eminently sensible” suggestion by the three office based Operations Co-Ordinators that only one worker attend the office and the others work remotely at any one time.
Small office
The worker provided a ‘lock-down’ photo taken on April 17th last showing her and her colleagues working in close proximity in the small office.
In an email dated April 17th, the worker told her employer that she was not able to socially distance from her two colleagues in the workplace.
In a formal grievance lodged on April 30th, the three Operations Co-Ordinators stated: “All three of us have family members in the ‘at risk’ category, and we are concerned about the health of our family members as well as our own wellbeing.”
They stated that these concerns were brought to the employer’s line manager attention numerous times at the start and during the Covid-19 outbreak “but nothing was done about it and zero care and consideration was given back”.
They state: “Most of our work can be completed from home but if there are issues that require our presence there will be one coordinator in the office to address them. This measure will minimise the infection risk and will help us keep our family and ourselves protected.’
Employer response
However, in response the employer rejected the work from home proposal.
In a letter on May 4th, the employer stated: “Prior to Covid-19 there was never a suggestion that the roles could be performed remotely, and the same situation pertains in a post-Covid situation. “Each person may absent themselves from work and check if they are entitled to a state benefit. The position will be kept under review, but at present the employer’s position is that the three roles are not suitable for remote working.”
The employer stated that it had taken Covid-19 workplace precautions, including PPE; changing the physical layout of the office; the installation of screens and warning tape and moving desks.
The managing director of the facilities management company told the hearing that the worker was of the opinion that she should work from home, but the company’s client would not have allowed this to happen. He stated that her job was essential, and the client would not have allowed her to work from home.
He outlined that it was the coordinators’ role to deal with the students and they were required to be on campus. He said no staff member, thankfully, contracted Covid-19, either in the university or elsewhere. In response to the proposal that some co-ordinators work from home, the managing director told the hearing that it was so busy at this time, so they all needed to be there.
