Categories
Anna Denton-Jones COVID-19 Disability Duty of Care Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Equality Act 2010 Health and Safety Health Conditions Sick Pay

Long COVID was a disability

The first Employment Tribunal case to determine that an employee with long COVID was disabled within the meaning of Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 has taken place. The employee was a caretaker and he tested positive for COVID-19 in November 2020. Initially, he was experiencing mild symptoms. After isolating, he developed severe headaches and fatigue that were so severe that after simple acts like having a shower or getting dressed, he had to lie down and recover. He struggled to stand for long periods. He couldn’t undertake household activities like cooking, ironing or shopping. He experienced joint pain, loss of appetite, a reduced ability to concentrate and difficulty sleeping. This all led to him feeling unable to socialise. His symptoms were unpredictable: he would experience an improvement, only to suffer from fatigue and exhaustion again.

In January 2022, so after a few months, his health began to improve but the sleep disruption and fatigue continued to affect his day to day activities. His notes referred to long COVID Post Viral Fatigue Syndrome. The employer obtained occupational health reports which both indicated that he was fit to return to work with a view that the disability provisions of the Equality Act were unlikely to apply. However, due to his fatigue levels and the fact that he didn’t return to work, in August 2021 because of ill-health, his employer dismissed him when he had been absent from work for 9 months.

The Tribunal has had to determine the preliminary issue of whether he was disabled at the relevant time. It has concluded that he was and that he wasn’t exaggerating his symptoms and had a physical impairment (The Post-Viral Fatigue Syndrome caused by COVID-19). The Judge found it relevant that there was no incentive for him to remain off work when he had exhausted his sick pay. They found that his symptoms were consistent with the June 2021 TUC Report into long COVID and in particular, the fluctuating nature of those symptoms. The physical impairment had an adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities and they found that the effect was more than minor or trivial and that it was long term because it could well last for a period of 12 months when viewed from the dismissal date. In particular, they noted that the employer themselves was of the view that there was no date in sight where a return to work seemed likely.

Clearly this case does not mean that the employee will be successful in his claims of disability discrimination – at this stage he has just got over the first hurdle of proving that he had a disability. The Tribunal will have to go onto consider whether or not the dismissal was justified in all the circumstances. In doing that, they are particularly likely to take into account to what extent reasonable adjustments were explored and the process that was followed around the dismissal. This might include considering alternative employment.

Indeed, in another case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has considered Section 15 of the Equality Act which you will recall is ‘discrimination arising from a disability’ in connection with dismissal following a period of absence. When Section 15 is raised, the Tribunal is going to be considering whether dismissal was a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’ of the employer. That case reminds us not to act prematurely in dismissing a disabled employee – the employer had grudgingly adopted a trial in an alternative location but failed to implement the trial reasonably or properly evaluate its success before their decision to dismiss. Where there was such an opportunity of work from a different location, a Judge is likely to find that that alternative was a less discriminatory alternative to dismissal that the employer should have taken. Clearly that wouldn’t have helped the employee with long COVID as he wasn’t able to work at all at the stage he was dismissed.

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 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

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones COVID-19 Duty of Care Employment Rights Act 1996 HR Return to Work

Refusal to work due to COVID-19

A case involving an employee who refused to attend work due to COVID-19 – Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd caught my eye because it is one of the first decisions that I have heard about dealing with an automatically unfair dismissal claim under Section 100 of the Employment Rights Act. Section 100 (d) permits an employee who is dismissed, in circumstances of danger, which the employee reasonably believed to be serious and imminent and which he could not reasonably have been expected to avert, he left (or proposed to leave) or (while the danger persisted) refused to return to his place of work or any dangerous part of his place of work, to claim automatically unfair dismissal.

In this particular case, the employee had a child with sickle cell anaemia and a 7 month old baby and was concerned that attending work would put his family at risk. The Employment Tribunal found that the employer had generally complied with all guidance as regards creating a COVID safe workplace: it was a large warehouse space, where it was possible to socially distance, face masks had been provided, guidance had been issued around hand washing and sanitiser had been provided and there were no criticisms made of the employers risk assessments or other measures put in place for COVID safety. In summary, the employee was more concerned about COVID-19 generally in the world at large as opposed to having any specific complaint about his actual workplace and how his employer had addressed those risks. In particular, the Tribunal noted that he had not made any complaint.

In those circumstances, whilst the wording used in the general Coronavirus Regulations (Public Health legislation) does use the same language and establishes that COVID-19 is a serious and imminent danger in general, the Tribunal felt that that could not be applied to this particular workplace because if you applied the logic that because COVID-19 is a general risk in the world, making every workplace dangerous, then every single employee across the country would be able to refuse to attend their workplace. For that reason and the fact that the employee had not made any specific complaints about his workplace, he failed in his complaint.

Of course, that does not mean that every employee will fail in such a claim: the TUC has reported in the week commencing Easter Monday, that their data shows that a third of all workplaces are not complying with the government guidance on COVID safe working. Clearly employees who work in those sorts of workplaces may have been successful in a similar argument.

This particular employee did not have 2 years’ service, so he was purely bringing his automatically unfair dismissal claim. However, if he had had 2 years’ service, he may well have brought an ordinary unfair dismissal claim – the Tribunal commented in this case that they would have had procedural concerns about the way in which the employer had handled the dismissal. As well as the procedural hurdle in an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, a Tribunal is also going to think about whether it would fall within the range of reasonable responses test to dismiss an employee who was worried about his family. I would suggest that the rush to dismissal in this case would probably make it unfair. An employer who issued the employee with warnings and had taken every step to work with the employee to allay his concerns, meet with him and get him back to work would be in a stronger position.

You could also see how in some cases an employee with their own disability could also have Equality Act claims if their own health was at the bottom of their refusal.

In any event, this is only a first instance decision and at some point the Employment Appeal Tribunal will have to rule on these sorts of issues and give guidance for employers but it is heartening essentially that the employee was not seen as being reasonable in this case and hopeful that the EAT will agree with the logic that general COVID risks in the world at large does not qualify as serious and imminent danger in the workplace, as every employee would be able to refuse to work.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones COVID-19 Disability Duty of Care Employment Law Equality Act 2010 Health Conditions Maternity Pregnancy Reasonable Adjustments Remote Working Return to Work Working from Home

Déjà vu — Shielding

If this feels familiar, we have been here before…

In Wales
The clinically extremely vulnerable have been advised to shield in Wales since the 22 December 2020. Shielding for the clinically extremely vulnerable will be paused on 31 March 2021. The fact that the word “pause” is being used indicates that this position may change again in the future so be prepared to be flexible.

Working from home should still be the position wherever that is possible. Where that is not possible, employers will have to take measures to make the workplace COVID secure which may involve changing the person’s duties etc.

In England
The clinically extremely vulnerable have been shielding since 5 January 2021. As of 1 April 2021, they will no longer be advised to do so and will not be eligible for statutory sick pay on the basis of being advised to shield.

The advice is still that they should continue to work from home wherever that is possible, so employers ought to be attempting to facilitate that. Where they cannot work from home, then they are advised to attend their workplace and employers will be under a duty to take measures which will reduce the risk of exposure to COVID-19 in the workplace. That may involve changing the person’s duties etc.

Both
Furlough is an option where the employer decides working from home isn’t possible. The employer would need to consider the discrimination risks associated with, for example, singling out a worker for furlough, when their category of colleague was not also being furloughed.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones COVID-19 Video

Video | Remembrance of those who have died of COVID-19

Our latest video is available to view on the Refreshing Law YouTube channel — please click here to watch Anna discussing that employers should be aware of a planned day of remembrance on 23 March 2021, for those that have been lost to COVID-19 over this last year.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law