Search

How can we help?

Icon

What does the Government’s U-turn on office workers really mean for employers?

On the 23rd of Septemeber in a statement to the nation, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced several new restrictions to try to halt the increasing coronavirus infection numbers. One of the announcements was directed at office workers, who were asked to work from home where possible.

Reports in the media suggest this is a complete U-turn from the Government position only a few weeks ago, when office workers were being strongly encouraged to return to offices, with employers and employees alike feeling that they have been left in the dark, with little detail around what this means in practice.

The British Chambers of Commerce commented that “unclear and inconsistent guidance on day-to-day working life will sap business and consumer confidence at a delicate moment for the economy.” Given that the Prime Minister’s instruction is only guidance, not law, and given the lack of detail, this becomes a very grey area for workers.

The Government has essentially left the practicalities down to conversations between workers and their employers. Although this sounds reasonable on the surface, in practice it could lead to very difficult conversations between parties that have different perceptions of risk, and differing needs.

The message to work from home has only ever been guidance, not law, even the first time workers were told to work from home – so from this perspective nothing has changed. However, last time workers were told to work from home, the wording used by the Prime Minister was slightly different. Workers were told to work from home “where you can”, whereas this time they are being told to work from home “where possible”. The word ‘possible’ seems to suggest that the employer has more discretion this time.

For example, where an employer can show that there is a business requirement to do certain work in the office in accordance with a worker’s job description and which cannot possibly be done from home, they may be in a stronger position to require employees to attend the office. To not do so could be seen to be a failure to follow reasonable management instructions by the employee. Employers must of course also be sure that the office environment itself is safe to return to, in order to avoid health and safety or unfair dismissal claims.

Employers should also ensure to tread with caution – yes, have frank discussions with employees about what tasks can and cannot possibly be done at home. However, employers should try to be empathetic and listen to employees to ensure they understand the whole picture. These past couple of months have revealed that certain workers crave the social interaction of office work, and really benefit from this from a mental health and wellbeing perspective.

Monica Atwal

Managing Partner

View profile

+44 118 960 4605

Workers were told to work from home “where you can”, whereas this time they are being told to work from home “where possible”. The word ‘possible’ seems to suggest that the employer has more discretion this time.

Employers should consider whether it is possible to support these workers to work in the office, provided it is safe to do so. For others, their mental health and wellbeing may suffer as a result of being asked to come into the office, for example if they live with someone with certain health conditions.

Employers should also be alert to future government support being put in place which may help their decision making. There have been reports today that the Chancellor has been consulting with businesses on potential furlough scheme replacements. For example, there have been suggestions of a new wage subsidy scheme, similar to Germany’s ‘Kurzarbeit’ scheme, as well as more financial support packages for businesses.

For now however, it appears  the Government has this week placed a social rather than legal obligation on employers to break the chain of transmission and to help avoid a full-scale national lockdown, which for many may be a heavy burden to bear.

About this article

Disclaimer
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

Monica Atwal

Managing Partner

View profile

+44 118 960 4605

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

art
  • 10 July 2024
  • Employment

Redundancy : Back to Basics FAQs

Redundancy can be a scary and overwhelming time both for employees being made redundant, and for those that have to make the decision. It is important for both parties to know their rights and obligations in this time.

art
  • 09 July 2024
  • Public Procurement

Buyer Beware: Practical Guidance for Breach of Warranty in an SPA

Are you buying a business? Whether you are buying shares in a company or purchasing its assets… the general Latin common law principle “caveat emptor” applies.

art
  • 08 July 2024
  • Corporate and M&A

Navigating corporate transparency: ECCTA reforms series

This is the second article in a series exploring the changes brought by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA).

art
  • 08 July 2024
  • Immigration

Right to Work Check Guidance – Key Changes for Employers

This updated guidance introduces several significant changes aimed at streamlining the right to work verification process for employers.

Pub
  • 02 July 2024
  • Privacy and Data Protection

Data protection unlocked for HR: Introduction to data protection

Lucy Densham Brown and Sana Nahas from the data protection team will discuss data protection issues encountered by HR professionals in the first episode of the ‘Data Protection Unlocked for HR’ podcast series.

Pub
  • 27 June 2024
  • Employment

TUPE Podcast Series: What Transfers

In this sixth podcast in our TUPE Podcast Series, Amanda Glover will delve into the automatic transfer principle and what transfers to the incoming employer under TUPE.