An employment tribunal ruled that staff cannot use their fear of Covid to stop them from returning to work.
Because the fear of contracting the virus or spreading it is not legally protected, this belief has been a common one.
This month, a Manchester tribunal heard a complaint about unlawful discrimination based on this fear.
According to the employment tribunal, concerns about spreading the virus to others and getting infected are not protected by law (file photo).
Judge Mark Leach however ruled health and safety issues do not fall under the equality legislation, so that an employer cannot withhold their wages.
The judgment doesn’t set any new precedents, but it gives employers some confidence when they consider deducting or firing staff who are refusing to come back to the office despite the fact that the work-from-home advice has been relaxed.
Unidentified woman brought the unlawful discrimination case against her employer. She had refused to go back to work in July because of safety and health concerns.
In March 2013, a stay-at home order was introduced. Many people switched to working at their homes unless this was not possible.
Employers encouraged their staff to come back into the workplace in the summer, after the second lockdown had been lifted.
The woman made a statement before the tribunal stating that she had “reasonable, justifiable safety and health concerns regarding the workplace around Covid-19” and that the threat posed was “serious and imminent”.
The woman said she had a ‘genuine fear’ of falling ill from the virus – and particularly of passing it on to her partner who she said was ‘at high risk of getting seriously unwell’.
An employment tribunal ruled that staff cannot use their fear of Covid to stop them from returning to work.
Her boss told her that when she challenged her “statutory employment rights regarding a danger to my health and safety, myself, and others”, she said she didn’t accept that she believed that her return to work would place her husband or her in grave and imminent danger.
Her employer withheld her salary, saying that it was discrimination on the basis of her belief about coronavirus.
Her case was dismissed after the judge found that her refusal to attend work was not discriminatory on the basis of religious belief.
In March 2013, a stay-at home order was introduced. Many people switched to working at their homes unless this was possible (file photo).
Judge Leach explained that Leach’s fear was actually a reaction to the threat of harm to her body and required action to prevent or decrease it.
He stated that “most (if not all), people instinctively respond in one way to real or perceived threats of bodily harm.”
She said that this view can be described as widespread and based upon the available information. “Taking certain steps such as going to a busy place at the height of the current epidemic would increase your risk of contracting Covid-19. It may also prove dangerous.”
He concluded that ‘a fear of bodily harm, and opinions about the best way to minimize or prevent such harm are not beliefs for purposes of [the legislation].’
This month, the Government reinstated advice for workers to work at home.