Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Adrian Nexam  
#1 Posted : 04 June 2020 12:35:36(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Adrian Nexam

What are the options for an employer if an employee is not social distancing outside work hours.

Is there any specific guidance for this situation? I cannot seem to find any as results always seem to hit on social distancing in work.

This is clearly a risk factor potentially exposing the rest of the work force to Coronavirus and needs to be controlled.

Thanks

Sam Ellacott  
#2 Posted : 04 June 2020 13:08:32(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Sam Ellacott

This is a tricky one as clearly you cannot control what your employees do outside of work.  However you do have an obligation to protect your workforce.

My inclination would be to have a conversation with the employee to establish the facts.  Do you already have proof or are you basing this on speculation/hearsay? Explain to them the issue you have, show them the proof should you have any, and ask them to be more vigilant of the guidance outside of work, explaining the dangers it entails.

If they fail to adhere to the guidance, can you furlough them? If their job is not essential and they refuse to comply with your requests, I would think you would be within your rights to do so if it was for the benefit of the larger workforce.

If not, your other option would be to reassign them to a temporary role secluding them from the other employees, therefore enforcing shielding whilst in work. Extreme, but I guess it depends on the situation.

Either way, my first port of call would be to discuss it with them and focus on the reasons why it is important to maintain that social distancing outside of work. 

Roundtuit  
#3 Posted : 04 June 2020 13:36:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: Adrian Nexam Go to Quoted Post
What are the options for an employer if an employee is not social distancing outside work hours.

Please get a life if they are outside of work they are beyond the employers control.

You cannot monitor them 24/7 and you cannot dictate their behaviour 24/7.

What will you do if they tell you to "sod off and mind your own business" which they would be well within their rights to do - they are employees not slaves or chattles.

thanks 8 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
DaveDowan on 04/06/2020(UTC), Kim Hedges on 04/06/2020(UTC), CptBeaky on 05/06/2020(UTC), N Hancock on 08/06/2020(UTC), DaveDowan on 04/06/2020(UTC), Kim Hedges on 04/06/2020(UTC), CptBeaky on 05/06/2020(UTC), N Hancock on 08/06/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#4 Posted : 04 June 2020 13:36:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: Adrian Nexam Go to Quoted Post
What are the options for an employer if an employee is not social distancing outside work hours.

Please get a life if they are outside of work they are beyond the employers control.

You cannot monitor them 24/7 and you cannot dictate their behaviour 24/7.

What will you do if they tell you to "sod off and mind your own business" which they would be well within their rights to do - they are employees not slaves or chattles.

thanks 8 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
DaveDowan on 04/06/2020(UTC), Kim Hedges on 04/06/2020(UTC), CptBeaky on 05/06/2020(UTC), N Hancock on 08/06/2020(UTC), DaveDowan on 04/06/2020(UTC), Kim Hedges on 04/06/2020(UTC), CptBeaky on 05/06/2020(UTC), N Hancock on 08/06/2020(UTC)
stevedm  
#5 Posted : 04 June 2020 15:40:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

...the employee should take all reasonable precautions to be properly prepared to attend for thier shift...in the best example is the person who is on nights not having sleep before the shift and therefore not physically able to complete the job role expected of him safely....bit of a stretch but if they don't isolate or follow the rules and you have evidence to support this and they get COVID-19 and have to isolate then not able to complete the job they are assigned?...as I say bit of a stretch but plausable..I have done it for night workers successfully but I haven't looked at this for CODVID-19

Kim Hedges  
#6 Posted : 04 June 2020 17:13:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kim Hedges

So report them to the Police, it's not your concern outside work. 

Roundtuit  
#7 Posted : 04 June 2020 20:14:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

The police have no powers to make two individuals stand 2m apart - it is guidance NOT law

Roundtuit  
#8 Posted : 04 June 2020 20:14:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

The police have no powers to make two individuals stand 2m apart - it is guidance NOT law

achrn  
#9 Posted : 04 June 2020 21:07:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

Originally Posted by: Adrian Nexam Go to Quoted Post
What are the options for an employer if an employee is not social distancing outside work hours.

Please get a life if they are outside of work they are beyond the employers control.

You cannot monitor them 24/7 and you cannot dictate their behaviour 24/7.

What will you do if they tell you to "sod off and mind your own business" which they would be well within their rights to do - they are employees not slaves or chattles.

Except that in many cases, where their actions outside of work contribute to the safety (or otherwise) of your other employees (or people not in your employ), it could be reasonable to intrude.  If one of the operators of your heav machinery turns up [expletive deleted]ed / stoned and tells you to "sod off and mind your own business", will you 'get a life' (whatever that means in this context) and permit them to operate your machinery?

thanks 1 user thanked achrn for this useful post.
Sam Ellacott on 05/06/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#10 Posted : 04 June 2020 21:56:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

No problem with monitoring drink or drugs to attend work where the company has a documented stated contractual policy - this post is discussing infectious agents amongst the general public.

There are many more communicable diseases an employee could contract not merely by ignoring this latest social distancing guidance but through being in the presence of their family or household or by just "living" which may be brought in to the workplace - measels, mumps, rubella, chickepox (shingles), TB, influenza.... all now starting to rise in numbers due to vaccinations being suspended.

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
DaveDowan on 05/06/2020(UTC), DaveDowan on 05/06/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#11 Posted : 04 June 2020 21:56:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

No problem with monitoring drink or drugs to attend work where the company has a documented stated contractual policy - this post is discussing infectious agents amongst the general public.

There are many more communicable diseases an employee could contract not merely by ignoring this latest social distancing guidance but through being in the presence of their family or household or by just "living" which may be brought in to the workplace - measels, mumps, rubella, chickepox (shingles), TB, influenza.... all now starting to rise in numbers due to vaccinations being suspended.

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
DaveDowan on 05/06/2020(UTC), DaveDowan on 05/06/2020(UTC)
achrn  
#12 Posted : 05 June 2020 07:11:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

No problem with monitoring drink or drugs to attend work where the company has a documented stated contractual policy - this post is discussing infectious agents amongst the general public.

There are many more communicable diseases an employee could contract not merely by ignoring this latest social distancing guidance but through being in the presence of their family or household or by just "living" which may be brought in to the workplace - measels, mumps, rubella, chickepox (shingles), TB, influenza.... all now starting to rise in numbers due to vaccinations being suspended.

Except that in the current circumstances we have a particular communicable disease which the government considers worth issuing specific and unusual instructions about.  Granted, those instructions are not explicitly enshrined in law, but they are instructions intended for reasons of health.  We have had government ministers proclaiming that any employer that does not go along with those issued to employers is rogue and will have enforcement action taken against them.

Thus, we have the unprecedented situation of employees instructed by the government to do something to protect the health of your other employees, and if, as an employer, you are aware that said employees are, say, failing in a  a duty to take care of their own health and safety and that of others who may be affected by their actions, I'm not at all convinced it is as simple as saying [] off and get a life.

(Interesting that the forum system objects to urination, but not to sodomy.  What's so evil about urination?)

John Murray  
#13 Posted : 05 June 2020 07:39:46(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

Originally Posted by: Adrian Nexam Go to Quoted Post

What are the options for an employer if an employee is not social distancing outside work hours.

Is there any specific guidance for this situation? I cannot seem to find any as results always seem to hit on social distancing in work.

This is clearly a risk factor potentially exposing the rest of the work force to Coronavirus and needs to be controlled.

Thanks

Once they know whaere you're coming from, they'll just lie.

John Murray  
#14 Posted : 05 June 2020 07:50:11(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

No problem with monitoring drink or drugs to attend work where the company has a documented stated contractual policy - this post is discussing infectious agents amongst the general public.

There are many more communicable diseases an employee could contract not merely by ignoring this latest social distancing guidance but through being in the presence of their family or household or by just "living" which may be brought in to the workplace - measels, mumps, rubella, chickepox (shingles), TB, influenza.... all now starting to rise in numbers due to vaccinations being suspended.

Not had enough time for the pandemic suspension of vaccinations to have any effect. The anti-vaccination campaign is responsible for the rise. Last year, even with the vaccine for flu being free, the average rate of vaccination for the elderly was lower than 65% (and that with a vaccine designed for reduced effectiveness immune systems)

stevedm  
#15 Posted : 05 June 2020 09:09:20(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

I must admit I have scimmed the comments as I think you are thinking too narrow...this isn't about COVID-19 it is about being prepared for your shift...if your actions outside work mean that you are others are put at riks as a result of it then you are the one at fault not the company....the compmany has to make all reasonable efforts to ensure that the employee has prepared themselves properly...difficult task and hard to prove...

thanks 3 users thanked stevedm for this useful post.
Wailes900134 on 05/06/2020(UTC), Sam Ellacott on 05/06/2020(UTC), Kate on 08/06/2020(UTC)
stevedm  
#16 Posted : 05 June 2020 09:15:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

The police have no powers to make two individuals stand 2m apart - it is guidance NOT law

They do have the power to detain people who are not complying with lawful instructions given in the execution of The Health Protection (COVID-19) Regulations...

Wailes900134  
#17 Posted : 05 June 2020 09:35:51(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Wailes900134

I agree with SteveDM about this not being Covid specific. It is about the level of relationship between the employer and employee, and in particular the trust that's there. I've worked in an environment where employees were expected to maintain their healthy capacity for work, and this was underpinned by a contractual requirement. This however was invariably managed by the employee and their colleagues very positively and very rarely was the underpinning threat ever surfaced. However... that site had a standard of supervisory management I have not seen elsewhere and the general T&C's of employees (and contractors) very good. I have seen companies mimic the "demands" on the employees vigorously whilst paying lip-service to their own inputs, with cery poor results.... You can't build that level of trust in the timeframe needed for Covid and using Covid as an "excuse" will likely be counter productive.

Unless you're very confident that such a relationship exists perhaps take Roundtuits advice for now... 

If you really would like to build such a culture it is possible... but far from easy, and in my experience less and less companies are interested in upskilling their management to the levels necessary.

stevedm  
#18 Posted : 05 June 2020 09:45:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

the issue for most employers I am, hearing at the moment...is that the people who are crowding the beaches are the same people who are saying they can't come back to work for fear of COVID 19...I am out.... the legal justification is there and if you have evidence then use it...it is nothing directly to do with COVID 19...may end up at tribunal for unfair dismissal but again if you have evidence of a breach then defend it...or do what a lot of others are doing and get rid of the 'difficult' employees whilst retaining the good...unfortunately it doesn't always work out like that as the good accept and move on the bad tend to shout louder... 

Roundtuit  
#19 Posted : 05 June 2020 12:34:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;

courage to change the things I can;

and wisdom to know the difference​​​​​​​

Roundtuit  
#20 Posted : 05 June 2020 12:34:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;

courage to change the things I can;

and wisdom to know the difference​​​​​​​

Wailes900134  
#21 Posted : 05 June 2020 16:17:23(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Wailes900134

Originally Posted by: stevedm Go to Quoted Post
...is that the people who are crowding the beaches are the same people who are saying they can't come back to work for fear of COVID 19...

Whilst the  Covid situation may be highlighting the issue of poor employee relations I wouldn't say it's the cause.

If the protective measures at work are effective then they should reasonably be expected to work. However if there's a question of the effectiveness of the measures, and this has left you of the opinion that if someone takes a risk in their own time at the beach that this means they must also take a similar risk on my time for which I'm paying them, i'd think again. I've never seen a regulatory interpretation anywhere that follows this logic in that way, and even if I were very confident I'd got a shirker using it as a cute excuse I'd need to be exceptionally confident before playing it tough with a pandemic which has killed >40,000 and for which government guidance has been all over the place.

I might also reflect on this.... if they are such a shirker should I not have addressed this in however long I employed them before Covid?... or could I live with this now but reslove to address it properly (proportionately and fairly) when the chaos subsides?

craigroberts76  
#22 Posted : 05 June 2020 18:07:44(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
craigroberts76

ask them that if they were taken to hospital and they new the doctor had been working on the covid ward, would they be happy to be treated by him for the duration of a working day?

it infuriates me (having lost an uncle to it) how lax people are being and assume their actions dont affect anyone else.

I've been in the office today for the first time in 10 weeks and annoyed that those in there (close friends and 2 family) arent bothered by it and are just close all the time, despite not knowing what the others are up to at night or weekends, or their partners.... I'm the H&S manager and I've give up with them tbh, no getting through, too much of a closed family type business.  I kept my distance, all i can do

Roundtuit  
#23 Posted : 05 June 2020 18:38:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: stevedm Go to Quoted Post
They do have the power to detain people who are not complying with lawful instructions given in the execution of The Health Protection (COVID-19) Regulations...

Perhaps you could enlighten us with the actual legal text of these powers of detention?

All I can see is: 

7.  During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering in a public place of more than two people

(9) Where a relevant person considers that three or more people are gathered together in contravention of regulation 7, the relevant person may—

(a) direct the gathering to disperse; (b) direct any person in the gathering to return to the place where they are living; (c) remove any person in the gathering to the place where they are living.

Roundtuit  
#24 Posted : 05 June 2020 18:38:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: stevedm Go to Quoted Post
They do have the power to detain people who are not complying with lawful instructions given in the execution of The Health Protection (COVID-19) Regulations...

Perhaps you could enlighten us with the actual legal text of these powers of detention?

All I can see is: 

7.  During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering in a public place of more than two people

(9) Where a relevant person considers that three or more people are gathered together in contravention of regulation 7, the relevant person may—

(a) direct the gathering to disperse; (b) direct any person in the gathering to return to the place where they are living; (c) remove any person in the gathering to the place where they are living.

stevedm  
#25 Posted : 06 June 2020 08:05:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

as you haven't provided a reference it is pretty hard to see where you got that from...mine as I am sure I stated before comes from The Health Protection Corona Virus Regulations 2020...

Wailes900134  
#26 Posted : 06 June 2020 10:05:12(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Wailes900134

It feels like a bit of a rabbit hole now.... debating the merits of Police powers under Covid controls over our employees whilst in their own time seems like “deckchairs on the Titanic” territory. Having seen what the police actually are achieving in this aspect societally, reporting it might also fit the “random acts of futility“ category on the actions table too.
Roundtuit  
#27 Posted : 06 June 2020 10:25:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

You mean the revoked regulations

The Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 (revoked)?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/129/contents

Must admit to be unable to find your original reference The Health Protection (Covid-19) Regulations....

Legualstion UK threw back "Your title search for Health Protection Covid-19 in Primary and Secondary Legislation has returned no results."

As the post was about restriction of liberty it was more appropriate to look at the more recent:

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/contents​​​​​​​

Edited by user 06 June 2020 11:39:21(UTC)  | Reason: added links to government publications

Roundtuit  
#28 Posted : 06 June 2020 10:25:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

You mean the revoked regulations

The Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 (revoked)?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/129/contents

Must admit to be unable to find your original reference The Health Protection (Covid-19) Regulations....

Legualstion UK threw back "Your title search for Health Protection Covid-19 in Primary and Secondary Legislation has returned no results."

As the post was about restriction of liberty it was more appropriate to look at the more recent:

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/contents​​​​​​​

Edited by user 06 June 2020 11:39:21(UTC)  | Reason: added links to government publications

Bigmac1  
#29 Posted : 06 June 2020 13:16:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bigmac1

Can people still be fined for not adhering to 2m social distancing rule?

stevedm  
#30 Posted : 07 June 2020 10:07:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

Just because you can’t google it doesn’t mean it isn’t there. It hasn’t been revoked. Check legitimate sources. And stop making daily fail comments it isn’t helpful or professional.
stevedm  
#31 Posted : 07 June 2020 10:48:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/coronavirus Is the link to all the current legislation to help with your Cpd. The post has been diverted by ‘others’ these comments have no bearing on the post.
Roundtuit  
#32 Posted : 07 June 2020 12:49:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: stevedm Go to Quoted Post
Just because you can’t google it doesn’t mean it isn’t there. It hasn’t been revoked. Check legitimate sources. And stop making daily fail comments it isn’t helpful or professional.

Pretty sure my post indicates by its hyperlinks I am looking at Legislation UK the web site operated by the National Archives on behalf of HM Gov and not merely Googling - IMHO this is a very legitimate source even more so given your follow up post takes us to the exact same digital library but not unfortunately to an individual publication that contains your earlier assertion of police detention powers.

If you bothered with the first reference hyperlink I providied to the National Archives the publication as you re-named it has the word revoked in brackets after its title - S.I. 2020 No. 129.

Roundtuit  
#33 Posted : 07 June 2020 12:49:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: stevedm Go to Quoted Post
Just because you can’t google it doesn’t mean it isn’t there. It hasn’t been revoked. Check legitimate sources. And stop making daily fail comments it isn’t helpful or professional.

Pretty sure my post indicates by its hyperlinks I am looking at Legislation UK the web site operated by the National Archives on behalf of HM Gov and not merely Googling - IMHO this is a very legitimate source even more so given your follow up post takes us to the exact same digital library but not unfortunately to an individual publication that contains your earlier assertion of police detention powers.

If you bothered with the first reference hyperlink I providied to the National Archives the publication as you re-named it has the word revoked in brackets after its title - S.I. 2020 No. 129.

stevedm  
#34 Posted : 07 June 2020 13:02:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

Oh dear...just because there is a link on the page to the national archives doesn’t mean it is archived legislation. ...no wonder the industry doesn’t get much respect.
Users browsing this topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.