Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Constructive Dismissal Employment Law

Knowledge November 2021

Each year in November we focus on a specific topic in depth. This year we focus on ‘Constructive Dismissal’. Here are the links to each edition:

Knowledge November 2021 – Week 1 covers an introduction to the topic:

https://mailchi.mp/ff1178f15115/welcome-to-knowledge-november-refreshing-law-5374561

Knowledge November 2021 – Week 2 covers Constructive Dismissal – Fundamental breach of contract:

https://mailchi.mp/5b70ce97b43e/welcome-to-knowledge-november-refreshing-law-5577949

Knowledge November 2021 – Week 3 covers Constructive Dismissal – Causation:

https://mailchi.mp/9b38225cac66/welcome-to-knowledge-november-refreshing-law-5577953

Knowledge November 2021 – Week 4 covers Constructive Dismissal – Affirmation:

https://mailchi.mp/2d4f922538b3/welcome-to-knowledge-november-refreshing-law-5577957

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Anonymity Data Protection Act 2018 Data Subject Access Requests Data Use and Access Act 2025 Duty of Care Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 GDPR

Loss of an employee’s records — A data breach claim

An employee who worked for Tesco settled her data breach claim for £3,000. She had requested copies of the information that Tesco held on her, using the subject access request mechanism that you are probably familiar with. She had, during a period of over 15 years working for her employer, given them a significant amount of ‘sensitive personal data’ in the old data protection jargon, now called ‘special category data’. This included details about counselling she had received in relation to her mental health, details of post-natal depression and the management of those health conditions. Most employers will have this sort of ‘special category data’ even if they don’t collect other data like criminal records.

It appears that Tesco could not lay their hands on this information, presumably in a physical format and there was a delay because the file had been lost at some point in the past, perhaps when there was a move of offices.

Tesco had written to her explaining that they had looked for her employment records but couldn’t find them. This then triggered her putting in her data breach claim, which would be to a Court and not an Employment Tribunal.

Tesco settled the case for £3,000 and it has been reported in the local press. The publicity surrounding these events is bound to give other employees ideas. It shows that the loss of data can be just as problematic as retaining historic data that you don’t really need to and can’t justify retaining.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Alternative Dispute Resolution Anna Denton-Jones Communication Conflict COVID-19 Disciplinary Employment Law Grievance Investigations Return to Work Stress Victimisation

Why we might be seeing more conflict and mistakes

You may have noticed some of the following since the pandemic:

• People getting more upset than “normal” over something relatively trivial.
• People having a very emotional reaction to something they are asked to do, for example, returning to the office.
• An increase in conflict in situations where previously this would have been less likely to happen and employees being less resilient.

There is a brain science explanation for all of this. We have at brain chemistry level, been living within an environment of constant and invisible threat for 18 months. During a situation of stress such as this, the limbic system goes into overdrive and more complex parts of our brain such as the prefrontal cortex are used less.

This all makes sense in an emergency: we need our brains to focus to enable us to deal with the threat. For example, I had somebody drive into the back to me recently at speed while I was stationary in the car. The limbic brain function enables you to calmly deal with the situation but in that state it becomes much harder for us to think rationally, deal with complicated decisions and we become error prone.

This might also explain why, if you are feeling that you are just trying to do something relatively straight forward that you have always done but for some reason it feels more challenging than previously. We overloaded the system. I always remember a junior doctor talking about how they coped with their very long shift working and all that their job brought with it but would burst into tears when they found that the toothpaste had run out. It’s a perfect illustration of the pressure on our system, suppressing the prefrontal cortex and yet reacting emotionally, losing our tempers more and being unable to talk ourselves down in the way we would normally.

Normally the prefrontal cortex is able to talk to the limbic system essentially telling it to calm down and behave more rationally but if we are stressed, tired or sick then that becomes more difficult. We know how exhausted everyone is saying they are, particularly those who have worked in the front line or who have had to step up in other ways to see their organisation through the last 18 months, we can see why normality is being impaired.

This is why everybody feels a bit on edge but can’t really articulate why – it is normal when you’ve survived some kind of disaster.

The brain is immensely adaptable and will figure its way through this phase. It can even be a good thing where people will grow as a result of the experience, with the majority returning to functioning as they did before and a small proportion effectively experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder. Researchers are even beginning to talk about the common outcome being long term resilience but for the meantime, what can we do?

We have to accept that a cohort of the workforce are feeling immense fatigue and have short levels of concentration or simply struggling to concentrate at all. We have to recognise when this is happening that it’s not necessarily a permanent state of affairs and that we need to provide support rather than go straight to performance managing out. It may even help to talk about this to get people to understand what is going on so that they accept their emotional state, rather than trying to fight against it. This reduces them being stressed about being stressed in the first place. It stops people dwelling and feeling increasingly negative. Dealing with what’s going on in a non-judgemental way can drag that prefrontal cortex back into the picture and give it a chance to quieten down the limbic system. If people are in a state of anxiety it can be quite easy to end up in a negative spiral where that becomes the dominant emotion.

When we are in a particular mental state we tend to dwell on the particular emotion that we are feeling and remember all of the other times that we have felt this way rather than all the other times when we haven’t felt this way. It may help people to understand that this is what happens and that dwelling on something more positive can help the brain chemistry.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Duty of Care Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Equality Act 2010 Gender Inclusivity Health Conditions Menopause Sick Pay

Developments in the law relating to menopause

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has only ever heard two cases in this space. Most recently they dealt with the second case that’s come before them where essentially they told the lower Tribunal off for failing to recognise the employee’s disability and potential sex discrimination claims. The case involved Leicester City Council and a social worker who was claiming constructive unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and sex discrimination. Her claim centred around the Council’s treatment of her in relation to her menopausal symptoms.

In her claim she described suffering from physical, mental and psychological effects of the menopause for a 2 year period. This included insomnia – causing fatigue and tiredness, light-headedness, confusion, stress, depression, anxiety, palpitations, memory loss, migraines and hot flushes. These had a negative impact on her life to the extent that she struggled physically and mentally to cope, had been to her GP who prescribed hormone replacement therapy and was under the care of a consultant at a specialist menopause clinic.

The employer had referred her to Occupational Health but were unable to meet the request that she be reviewed by a female doctor. The employee felt embarrassed and uncomfortable discussing her symptoms and the difficulties she was experiencing in their presence and in particular she had had a work related warning for her absence levels and at appeal, four men were present to make the decision. She described how when she had advised a male manager that she was suffering from hot flushes in the office, he had said he also got hot in the office, dismissing this as a menopause symptom.

The legal issues in the claim were more about the Tribunal having not applied the right level of detail to the explanation of their findings. The case still illustrates a number of key points:

  • That the menopause and menopause related symptoms can meet the definition of disability under the Equality Act as regards a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long term adverse effect on somebody’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities.
  • The need for employers have their antenna looking to spot in performance cases or cases where they are managing absence levels, whether there may be an underlying issue such as the menopause and the need, where there is, to use normal processes, and ensure further advice is obtained rather than ploughing on regardless, dismissing the issue as ‘just sickness absence’.
  • When referring somebody to Occupational Health, it would be respectful, to abide with an employee’s wishes to enable them to see a female Dr if they want. A rule that they had to see whoever was available may be indirectly discriminatory and you would need to think carefully about whether you could justify such a requirement or whether it’s actually going to be seen as a separate act of harassment or victimisation if you fail to be flexible on this.
  • It’s important to train managers so that they are aware of the menopause and don’t belittle it or think it can’t affect some people. We have a one-hour training session that we are able to provide on this subject area, if you are interested.

Interestingly, the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health has, as part of its response to the Parliamentary Enquiry that is currently going on into the issue of menopause in the workplace, made a number of recommendations including that employers need to take a more holistic view and put the spotlight on effective management practices and practical support. The Parliamentary Enquiry which launched in July of this year will consider, for example, whether it would be necessary to elevate menopause as a stand-alone disability like cancer under the Equality Act so that it gets the recognition it lacks at the moment.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Employment Law Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023 Employment Rights Act 1996 HR Part-Time Working Remote Working Return to Work

Reform of flexible working

The government has launched a consultation relating to some amendments to the flexible working legislation making political mileage out of a willingness to make a request of flexible working a day 1 right, but what will their proposals really mean?

The current system works as follows: someone with 6 months service can make a request to work flexibly to their employer who must consider it within a reasonable time and can decline the request, provided their reasons for doing so falls within a list of eight business reasons for doing so. This covers things like the inability to service their customers, additional cost, the inability to reorganise work amongst existing staff or to recruit additional staff and a detrimental impact on quality or performance, if there is sufficient work during the period of time the employee proposes working and wider planned structural changes.

Given that it’s fairly straightforward for an employer to weave their way through, employees typically have to rely on the discrimination legislation to argue their request results in less favourable treatment of them compared with colleagues. For example, working mothers have often claimed indirect sex discrimination in comparison with the male workforce as regards fixed working hours and patterns of work because they are at a disadvantage as a result of the employer’s policies. The employer then has the ability to justify any indirect discrimination as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Employees with caring responsibilities may have to rely on associative discrimination provisions or age discrimination to help them.

The Government’s consultation has asked for views on 5 different things:

  1. Making the right to request flexible working a day 1 right by removing the 26 week qualifying period.
  2. Whether the eight existing business reasons for refusing a statutory request remain valid.
  3. Requiring employers to suggest alternatives if they intend to refuse a request.
  4. The administrative process underpinning the rights to request flexible working and whether that needs any change.
  5. Whether the right to request a temporary flexible arrangement might be utilised.

This tells us that the Government may be considering a separate right to the existing legislation which results in a permanent change to somebody’s working patterns if a request is accepted and that there might need to be a short term agreement but clearly there’s no definition yet to see what that might look like. Anyone who is a working parent trying to juggle children being sent home from school because of COVID-19 will surely have ideas about how such temporary flexibility might improve their lives.

The Government has already signalled that it will introduce a right to carers leave, which would be 5 working days of unpaid leave per year for employees to manage long term caring responsibilities outside of work and which would be able to be taken in any combination from half day to days or part of a week to the week. We have been told that the legislation will go before Parliament “when time allows”.

The CIPD emphasise that flexible working needs to be thought about in wider terms than just whether somebody is working from home versus working in the office. There is a whole range of flexibility in relation to flexi-time, part-time working, compressing hours such as working a 13 day fortnight and job shares.

The Government is going to be considering the lessons that have been learnt from COVID-19 and the undoubted seismic changes in what employees want in terms of their desires and preferences to spend less time commuting and how that is balanced against what employers want in terms of what is workable for them and what is in the interests of the business. Quite how that balancing exercise will play out will be interesting – from a legislator perspective, my money would be on incremental changes only and the employers retaining the upper hand but realistically, all employers needs to consider the current jobs market and the fact that employees are gravitating towards those organisations who they feel are most likely to meet their needs and any employer who is ignoring the issue of flexible working is likely to experience the implications in their attrition rates and challenges recruiting.

It’s always worth remembering to trial something before having to commit to it fully. Often a trial is the only way to successfully assess whether or not something works as a compromise for both parties.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Communication Duty of Care Employment Law Health and Safety Health Conditions Mental Health Risk Assessment Stress

What to do when you’re worried about someone — Suicide awareness

Friday, 10th September was Suicide Awareness Day. By coincidence I ended up having the same conversation twice with two different organisations. In both cases, the employer had an employee who was on long term sick and where a pattern of contact with the employer had been established but they felt that something had changed. The lack of contact they were now experiencing was out character from the employee. In one case the employee had shared that they were having negative thoughts and in the other the employer was just concerned.

In such a case where efforts to speak with the employee are not fruitful, if you have any concerns then I recommend you act on them rather than ignore them. Our intuition is there for a reason.

The first port of call might be the next of kin that the individual has left with you. You don’t need to get into discussing any details about the employee or their absence, their health or anything like that: you can just remind the next of kin that they have been appointed by the employee as the next of kin and that you are worried about the employee because there has been a change in behaviour — are they okay? This is likely to prompt the next of kin to say that they will check.

The second port of call might be the GP. If you have the employee’s GP details which you are likely to do from the fit notes that they will have been submitting, you could contact the practice explaining that you have concerns and this is likely to trigger the practice then checking up on the individual. The GP will not be able to discuss anything about the individual with you but they will note if you are saying there is out of character behaviour and the fact that you have bothered to take the time to call.

Clearly you might be barking up the wrong tree entirely but for the sake of a phone call or two, if you are in any doubt, it is better than regretting not having raised a concern if there is something to worry about.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Disability Discrimination Law Diversity Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Equality Act 2010

The widening of disability discrimination

In 2010, when the Equality Act was updated, the concept of associative discrimination was enshrined within the legislation as regards direct discrimination. This followed the famous Coleman case, where the protection had been extended to the employee not because of her disability but because she was caring for her disabled child.

Since then, in 2014, a Bulgarian case in the European Court of Justice, Chez Razpredelenie extended the concept of associative discrimination to indirect discrimination.

Reminder: direct discrimination is the idea that because of somebody’s protected characteristic they have been treated in a particular way. That direct discrimination can occur where the reason for less favourable treatment is the protected characteristic of someone with whom the victim associates.

For indirect discrimination to be established under Section 19 of the Equality Act, the Employer is applying some kind of provision criterion or practice to everybody but the Claimant argues that this puts them and those with whom they share a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage. The employer has the opportunity to defend the case showing it to be a proportionate means to achieving a legitimate aim. Traditionally, this requires the Claimant to have the protected characteristic in question and to suffer the disadvantage personally.

In the Chez case the European Court of Justice held that the protection afforded by the Race Directive which sits behind our law applied irrespective of the ethnic origin of the person who suffered the disadvantage ie: associative indirect discrimination was possible. One of its reasons for doing so was the overarching aim of eliminating all discrimination on ethnic or racial grounds. Thus they were determining that it was sufficient for a person to show that they had suffered a particular advantage alongside a disadvantaged group.

In a recent UK decision of Follows v Nationwide Building Society, Mrs Follows was employed on a Homeworker Contract for around 7 years and the primary reason that she worked from home was to care for her disabled mother. She attended the office 2-3 days a week. She had high ratings in appraisals throughout her employment, including conducting excellent supervision of her team.

Nationwide decided to reduce the number of managers from 12 to 8 and to determine that everyone would have to be office based. The reason that they gave was a greater need for supervision due to a change in the nature of the work and feedback from junior staff who were dissatisfied with the level of supervision provided to them.

Mrs Fellows was put at risk of redundancy and the employer experienced more volunteers than the required reduction in headcount. Mrs Follows didn’t volunteer and wanted to stay in employment but continued to argue that she should retain her existing working from home arrangements. Nationwide it appears approached some of the volunteers for redundancy to request that they stay on but yet dismissed Mrs Follows by reason of redundancy.

Another male colleague, who was not disabled and who was not a carer but also worked from home received the same treatment and was also dismissed.

Mrs Follows brought claims of unfair dismissal, direct and indirect associative discrimination on the grounds of disability, indirect sex discrimination and indirect age discrimination.

The direct discrimination, the disability discrimination claim and the indirect age discrimination claims failed. She was successful in her claim for unfair dismissal, indirect associative discrimination on the grounds of her mother’s disability and indirect sex discrimination. Here we are going to focus on the disability arguments.

The reason why the direct discrimination claim failed was that the correct comparator was her male colleague who wasn’t disabled or a carer – because he received the same treatment as her and was also dismissed, she couldn’t get this claim off the ground. However, the claim of indirect disability discrimination by association was upheld. The Tribunal noted the background with the Chez case and the Tribunal were prepared to read our domestic legislation in the light of the Directive that sits behind it. The requirement to no longer work at home put Mrs Follows at a substantial disadvantage because of her association with her mother’s disability as her principal carer. Nationwide knew of the circumstances and of the disadvantage that Mrs Follows would suffer by its changing requirements.

The legitimate aim relied on by Nationwide was the need to provide more effective onsite supervision and the change in their lending work: given the evidence Mrs Follows’ supervisions were good, the Tribunal felt supervision had to be onsite was itself discriminatory and it couldn’t therefore amount to a legitimate aim. Even if it had been prepared to find that they were legitimate aims it felt that selecting Mrs Follows for redundancy and dismissing her was not proportionate as a means of achieving that legitimate aim, it wasn’t based on any actual evidence or rational judgment, rather it was based on Nationwide’s objective view of dissatisfaction expressed from junior staff together with managers view that the new arrangement would be better. They had also failed to take into account Mrs Follows’ view or her history of excellent supervisory work. It seems that the Tribunal were mindful that Mrs Follows had been attending the office for 3 days a week already and was prepared to continue doing so. It clearly influenced their attitude towards Nationwide being unreasonable.

This case widens the picture of our discrimination law and will be particularly relevant now that we are looking at how we work from home or in the office and hybrid working moving forward.

Whilst the case is at first instance, there is always the opportunity for the Employment Appeal Tribunal to provide more guidance on this subject and employers need to be careful when arguing somebody must return to the office/can’t do their job from home. They must have concrete evidence to rely on to justify their demands.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Equality Act 2010 Maternity Redundancy Settlement Agreements Video

Video | Maternity leave, redundancy and alternative employment

Our latest video is available to view on the Refreshing Law YouTube channel — please click here to watch Anna discussing ‘maternity leave, redundancy and suitable alternative employment’.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones COVID-19 Dispute Management Employment Contract Employment Law Employment Tribunal Pay

Non-payment of commission due to COVID-19

The Tribunal has recently dealt with a case relating to non-payment of commission due to COVID-19 in Sharma v Lily Communications. The employee concerned had a basic salary and then commission based on 15% of profit that the business made. This was paid upfront and agreed at interview.

The clause in the contract, followed the common wording that “in addition to your salary the Company may pay you commission of such amount as shall from time to time be determined by the Company in its absolute discretion. Any commission payments will be paid at such intervals and subject to such conditions as the Company may in its absolute discretion determine from time to time. Any commission payment to you shall be purely discretionary and there is no contractual entitlement to receive it and it shall not form part of your contractual remuneration or salary for pension purposes or otherwise. If the Company makes a commission payment to you, it shall not be obliged to make subsequent bonus payments in respect of subsequent financial years of the Company. The Company reserves the right in its absolute discretion to terminate or amend any commission scheme without notifying you”. Do you think the employer were keen to make sure the commission scheme was discretionary with their three mentions of it?

Later the employer tried to change the position, imposing a new commission structure but the judge found that this hadn’t been communicated to or agreed with the Claimant. This is the first important point: an employer cannot just move goal posts – any change has to be agreed with the affected employees.

When COVID hit, the employer realised it was at risk of non-payment by its customers so changed to paying commission only when it had been paid not upfront, reducing the earnings of the Claimant. The Claimant was furloughed and challenged why he wasn’t receiving commission on deals he knew had been signed and paid. He was told during furlough commission was deferred. The Claimant didn’t return to work – he was made redundant in August 2020.

The Claimant brought a claim for over £5,000 commission he said he should have been paid during the period April to August 2020 and was successful. The Tribunal found that the scheme was discretionary but noted that even where a scheme is discretionary there is still a contractual obligation to exercise that discretion rationally and in good faith. The judge found that the uncertainty over the pandemic was a paradigm example of a situation where the employer would want to exercise discretion in a different way so deferring payment was OK. However, when his employment was terminated, the accrued commission should have been paid.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Alternative Dispute Resolution Anna Denton-Jones Conflict COVID-19 Employment Law Mediation

Waiting for the conflict

Recently I have been commenting about the rising conflict that I am seeing in the workplace. This is unsurprising given some of the tensions that are around managing COVID-19 and the lessening of restrictions – the burden is being placed on employers to resolve the clashes that might emerge. If you haven’t already thought about these things, these are some of the issues that are arising:

  1. The clinically extremely vulnerable

The Government updated its advice to those who are clinically extremely vulnerable on 19 July 2021. If you recall, shielding advice was paused on 1 April 2021 but many in this category will have been protected by the instruction to largely work from home until now. Now advice is to continue with social distancing and suggests other precautions they might take, such as, only meeting others in well ventilated places, limiting contact to those who have been vaccinated, taking lateral flow tests before meetings and continuing social distancing.

When it comes to work, the guidance is that it is the employer’s legal responsibility to protect their employees from risks to their health and safety, setting out that “your employer should be able to explain to you the measures that they have in place to keep you safe at work”. (So no different to any employee then…).

It then cross-refers to the HSE Guidance on Protecting Vulnerable Workers which includes older males, those with a high body mass index, those with health conditions such as diabetes and those from Black, Asian or Minority Ethnicity backgrounds. They encourage employers to continue to use the furlough scheme if an employee can’t work from home. They go on to explain how you can support workers working from home.

It is interesting that the guidance tells employees specifically that if they have got concerns about their health and safety at work that they can raise them with their union, the HSE or the local authority. Rather unhelpfully, it doesn’t encourage the employee to raise concerns with their employer first before contacting their union or HSE… I am definitely seeing an increase in employees referring things to the HSE anyway.

In Wales, the guidance remains that if somebody is clinically extremely vulnerable then they should continue to work from home if possible but that they can return to work if the workplace is COVID secure. In particular, the employer is advised to talk to the employee as soon as possible about how they are being kept safe, they should put in place 2 metre distances between colleagues, they need a risk assessment, taking into account the individual’s risk factors. The guidance again encourages the use of the furlough scheme.

With the lifting of restrictions in England in particular, there is a cohort of those who are vulnerable or live with someone who is very worried about the measures that are currently in place, who may well be suffering with heightened anxiety in relation to these developments. There is the potential for this issue to clash with others in the workplace, who have less understanding or empathy and for differences to emerge.

It is important to remember that those who are clinically extremely vulnerable are likely to be disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 and the duty to make reasonable adjustments will apply. It is worth noting that the Access to Work Scheme was updated last year so that if there are employees with a physical or mental health condition who need to work from home as a result of the pandemic, support can be accessed, for example, to buy equipment, pay for extra travel costs if they are unable to use public transport safely, or for protective equipment. There is a 9 month period within which to make a claim for such costs.

  1. Vaccination status

There is a potential for conflict to arise between those who have received the vaccine or believe in the importance of the vaccine and those who don’t or those who have been vaccinated and may now feel invincible and those waiting to get to that place. This could lead to dealing with grievances with employees who do not wish to be vaccinated who feel classed as discriminated against if the employer puts in place guidelines in relation to vaccination. It is worth noting that on 13 July 2021, the Government published a raft of information for employers expecting them to encourage people who haven’t been vaccinated to do so, suggesting how they might do that. Surveys have consistently shown that large numbers of employees are uncomfortable having to work with those who haven’t been vaccinated. You can see the tension that lies ahead. Things may also get worse if people have strong feelings on a subject and vociferously share their views. Employees also pick up these things by seeing each other’s Facebook posts and Tweets.

  1. Pregnant workers

There is a myth circulating that somebody who is pregnant cannot be vaccinated. If you look at the UK Public Health Guidance on this, including evidence in the Lancet, the Guidance is actually that pregnant workers should still be vaccinated. Initially, previous Government advice was that pregnant shouldn’t be vaccinated but this was updated on 16 April 2021.

Employers have special obligations as soon as they know that a worker is pregnant, to undertake risk assessments in respect of that person anyway. Of course, this is heightened due to the pandemic. Again, there may be a cohort of workers who have heightened anxiety and are less tolerant of what they may see as unsafe actions of colleagues.

An employer has the legal obligation under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 to alter a pregnant employees working conditions or hours to avoid any significant risk. Where it is not possible to do that or where alterations to conditions or hours wouldn’t avoid the risk, the employer is expected to offer suitable alternative work on terms that are no less favourable and if that isn’t possible, then there is a legal obligation under Section 16(3) of those Regulations and Section 67 of the Employment Rights Act to suspend the employee on full pay. Guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives in conjunction with the Government and the HSE was last updated on 21 June 2021 and reiterates the importance of risk assessments and provide a number of recommendations including – “we advise all employers to be cognisant of that Guidance and apply it”.

As pregnant women are identified as clinically vulnerable in the Social Distancing Guidance, where the nature of their role means they can’t work from home and there isn’t any suitable alternative work that they could do from home, the employer should be suspending that employee on full pay, if workplace risks can’t be sufficiently mitigated. The Commission for Equality and Human Rights Guidance also suggests that requiring pregnant employees to continue to work in frontline roles could amount to indirect discrimination because of sex.

  1. Those who are suffering from anxiety

These are people who are experiencing higher levels of anxiety than they would have pre-pandemic. In particular, those who have led a more sheltered life for the last year and a half and even the most simple things we have got out of the habit of doing become more stressful. We need to be more gentle with those who are being asked to return to the workplace who haven’t been there for a long time. You must remember that there are those who have lost loved ones or friends to COVID and tolerance levels of the way in which other people behave or are perceived to behave in relation to, for example, wearing masks and social distancing can become a cause of tension or conflict.

In some cases that “normal” anxiety can actually become something more and if the employee has a diagnosed medical condition or something that hasn’t yet been diagnosed and it is severely limiting their ability to do normal day to day things, we are moving into disability territory again, meaning your requirement to make reasonable adjustments kicks in. You need to get medical advice. I am constantly seeing cases where an employee tells their employer something like “I’m anxious” and then criticises them for not taking steps to tackle that issue. I sometimes see a myth amongst line managers that an employee needs to ask for reasonable adjustments – that isn’t the case, the duty is on the employer irrespective of whether the employee is suggesting an adjustment or not.

  1. Tension between different groups

The latest announcement that some workers who have been pinged by the NHS App and are otherwise isolating for 10 days but can go to work in social care and healthcare settings is only going to make this worse. If I was a colleague I wouldn’t want to be working with that person…

  1. Holidays

With the UK Government officially giving the green light to international travel in May 2021 and with the traffic light system reflecting COVID risks in different countries, staff will undoubtedly have strong opinions on colleagues who are visiting amber list countries (and red list countries where they have an essential reason such as a family bereavement). Colleagues won’t necessarily know the vaccination status of a colleague or whether or not they should be isolating. Countries are also moving between where they are on the list such as Portugal which moved from Green to Amber. The rules are quite different in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland and with a nuance there is undoubtedly room for friction. It is very difficult for an employer to forbid an employee to leave the country in their own time, to visit locations that the Government is permitting them to. We don’t even have the right to require the employee to tell us where they are going. We suggest that this is laid down in policy documents. For example, you may state that leave requested for international travel will not be accepted and may be cancelled if discovered at a later date and explain why these rules are put in place. Employees need to understand clearly what the position is if they are quarantining without symptoms (they won’t get SSP and unless they are able to work from home, they will not be paid).

If there was a theme in all the different grievances I have on my desk at the moment, one thread would be that it probably became apparent early on that there was conflict and tension between different employees, and the matter has been ignored or not given the attention that could have prevented it getting worse.

Everybody has been doing everything on Zoom and Teams and we are facing a reluctance to talk now to anybody properly about anything – the most important tool that can be deployed to prevent grievances escalating is a good old fashioned conversation. A conversation that involves listening to everybody’s perspective. There is huge value in people feeling listened to and heard – you can signal that to somebody by playing back to them what it is you have taken from what they have just said, using their own words, acknowledging if they have expressed how they feel about it.

A powerful question that can be asked in those scenarios is “how would you like us to resolve this?”. That puts the onus onto the individual concerned to come up with a solution and not just be having a whinge about something. Quite often when you ask people this question, they are sensible in what they say, perhaps it’s an apology that they were looking for or perhaps it’s an acknowledgement of what they have been through or feel.

Because the potential costs in terms of time and energy converted into dealing with grievances is so huge, before you even think about asking for legal advice, we really do need to be investing in the skills that managers need in order to have these conversations.

Details of training packages that we offer in this regard are available on request. Please email: adenton@refreshinglawltd.co.uk for more information.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law