Extremely Clinically Vulnerable employee allowed to work?

[Guest]

If an employer knows that an employee is Extremely Clinically Vulnerable and does not Furlough them or force them to go sick and the employee subsequently develops Covid-19, does the employer risk being sued?

[efpom]

Anyone can sue anyone for anything - whether they would be successful is another matter.

[G7ivp]

Anyone can sue anyone for anything - whether they would be successful is another matter.

Not very helpful. I wondered what chance of success.

[Scot22]

Unfortunately not easy to predict. In that situation I would put my health first and simply not go in. Yes probably financial difficulties but again I would put my health first.

[G7ivp]

The question was born out of an employer's policy of not furloughing any employee on grounds of cost (they still have to make pension and National Insurance contributions) regardless of their health.

[Aged William]

Here is the guidance on shielding and protecting people who are clinically extremely vulnerable from COVID-19...


https://www.gov.uk/government/public...m-covid-19#cev

[G7ivp]

Thank you Aged William I had seen that and wondered what sanctions there might be for an employer that ignores it; after all its just guidance not law or am I wrong?

[ULA]

Just another angle to come at this at. Has the employer taken adequate measures to ensure the workplace is COVID secure?

If not then Section 44 Employment Rights Act 1996 my be helpful. Section 44. provides employees with the means to contest the adequacy and/or suitability of safety arrangements without fear of recriminations (e.g. getting sacked or transferred) or suffering detriment (e.g. loss of wages). This section provides employees with the ‘right’ to withdraw from and to refuse to return to a workplace that is unsafe. Employees are entitled to remain away from the workplace (e.g. stay at home) if, in their opinion, the prevailing circumstances represent a real risk of serious and imminent danger which they could not be expected to avert.

[Scot22]

Excellent advice. Realise all I commented was principle.

[G7ivp]

Just another angle to come at this at. Has the employer taken adequate measures to ensure the workplace is COVID secure?

If not then Section 44 Employment Rights Act 1996 my be helpful. Section 44. provides employees with the means to contest the adequacy and/or suitability of safety arrangements without fear of recriminations (e.g. getting sacked or transferred) or suffering detriment (e.g. loss of wages). This section provides employees with the ‘right’ to withdraw from and to refuse to return to a workplace that is unsafe. Employees are entitled to remain away from the workplace (e.g. stay at home) if, in their opinion, the prevailing circumstances represent a real risk of serious and imminent danger which they could not be expected to avert.

Not sure. The "workplace" is the cab of a lorry as the employee is an HGV driver.

I can see the usefulness of Section 44 but assume there would be no pay for an absence taken under it.

[Aged William]

Here is the guidance on shielding and protecting people who are clinically extremely vulnerable from COVID-19...


https://www.gov.uk/government/public...m-covid-19#cev

The link includes this...

As you are being advised not to attend work, you may be eligible for Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) or Employment Support Allowance (ESA). The formal shielding letter you receive will act as evidence for your employer and the Department of Work and Pensions that you are advised to shield and may be eligible for SSP or ESA.

Is this a viable option?

[G7ivp]

The link includes this...



Is this a viable option?

SSP is paid at £95.85/week. Not much help when you're usually on £100/day. Being furloughed would be much better.