# Older Employee wants to go back to work



## Purple (13 May 2020)

Has anyone got a link to guidance on what to do when an employee who is over 70 wants to go back to work?
The person in question in very fit and strong (marathon running levels of fitness), doesn't smoke and has no underlying health conditions. They are going out of their mind at home all day (single person with no family nearby) and has asked their employer if they can return to work. Is there any guidance anywhere, other than the generalities on the HSE website and similar?


----------



## Sunny (13 May 2020)

There are no legal restrictions on over 70's. It is only advice. If his place of work is allowed to be open with usual precautions, I wouldn't see a problem.


----------



## Purple (13 May 2020)

Sunny said:


> There are no legal restrictions on over 70's. It is only advice. If his place of work is allowed to be open with usual precautions, I wouldn't see a problem.


Thanks Sunny, I think his employer is looking for guidance. They are aware of the impact it is having on him but don't want to put him or themselves at risk of sanction.


----------



## Sunny (13 May 2020)

Purple said:


> Thanks Sunny, I think his employer is looking for guidance. They are aware of the impact it is having on him but don't want to put him or themselves at risk of sanction.



I think they will be a long time waiting. The guidance will always be no and that it is not safe but I think we are at the stage now when we need to think about other impacts to peoples health. Only issue might be insurance so that might be the place to go to get a yes/no answer if the employer is covered or not.


----------



## Purple (13 May 2020)

Yea, it's a tricky one. The narrative seems to be that everyone over 70 wants to cocoon and only employers are trying to force them to go back to work. 
It ignores the fact that many people like going to work and, especially for some older people, it is their main point of social interaction and critical for their mental health. For the person involved I can say that this is having a devastating impact on their mental health.


----------



## odyssey06 (13 May 2020)

Cocooning is still noted as advised in the Phase 2 roadmap.
I don't see any mention of it from Phase 3 (29 June), so (assumption) does that mean the stay at home advice for over 70s is lifted?

I can't see any employer going against the Phase 2 advice.

From Phase 3, I think employer would look at their role and how much interactions they have etc.
The employer may be looking to reduce the numbers in the workplace to make it easier for staff there to distance, and the last employee they would want in the workplace is someone in an 'official' high risk group.


----------



## Purple (13 May 2020)

The employee in question is at home on full pay until the restrictions are lifted. The employer has told them that they are not to come into work. It is the employee who is pushing to come back. Their main social interaction is in the workplace.


----------



## odyssey06 (13 May 2020)

Purple said:


> The employee in question is at home on full pay until the restrictions are lifted. The employer has told them that they are not to come into work. It is the employee who is pushing to come back. Their main social interaction is in the workplace.



Probably the employee needs to get clarity from the employer on which restrictions specifically, as in with reference to phase in the roadmap.
At the moment, and up until the end of Phase 2, the employer can point to the stay at home advice for over 70s to justify their stance.
And if the employer says which restriction they are basing it on, then the employee can challenge not being allowed to return to work when that restriction is lifted countrywide.


----------



## Purple (13 May 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> Probably the employee needs to get clarity from the employer on which restrictions specifically, as in with reference to phase in the roadmap.
> At the moment, and up until the end of Phase 2, the employer can point to the stay at home advice for over 70s to justify their stance.
> And if the employer says which restriction they are basing it on, then the employee can challenge not being allowed to return to work when that restriction is lifted countrywide.


The employer can't give clarity as they don't know what restrictions apply and how to handle it. The advice and guidance is for the employee to stay at home.


----------



## Baby boomer (13 May 2020)

There are two ways the employer needs to look at this.  From a purely human point of view, the right thing is to let the guy back to work.  He wants it; the employer wants it. What's the problem?

Well worst case scenario.  Employee returns to work.  Gets Covid-19, seriously ill, becomes disabled, can't work.  Enter men in wigs and gowns.  Employer is clearly in breach of government advice and guidelines (not the law but still...) regarding over-70s. Employer has a duty to ensure safe place of work, etc, etc.  Any court is going to find that adhering to government guidelines - especially at a time like this - is an essential part of ensuring a safe place of work.  Then there's the employer's liability policy that's probably in place.  Just watch and see the Insurance company argue that Covid-19 liability is excluded in these circumstances.  It's unlikely to end well, even if the employer manages to win the case.

Now consider the Court of Public Opinion. Much more serious than the Supreme Court. The employer looks like a heartless Victorian mill-owner forcing a vulnerable aged employee back to work in the middle of the worst pandemic in 100 years.  Imagine Joe Duffy getting stuck in - he has to build his pension back up you know and, well, ratings.....

Now, back to the original question.  Your choice, what do you think?


----------



## Purple (14 May 2020)

Good summation Bb.


----------



## Ceist Beag (14 May 2020)

In one post Bb you have accurately captured not only the answer to the OP but also highlighted a blight in modern society - don't do the right thing for fear of litigation or lack of protection.


----------



## Purple (14 May 2020)

Ceist Beag said:


> In one post Bb you have accurately captured not only the answer to the OP but also highlighted a blight in modern society - don't do the right thing for fear of litigation or lack of protection.


But don't you know that all employers are evil and exploit their "wurkers". They are part of the "employer classes" (a phrase I first heard from a District Court Judge no less) and exploit the masses. By her logic a Solicitor working for a large firm on €400,000 a year isn't exploiting anyone but a Brick Layer who employs a labourer is. That's the narrative so that's the truth.


----------



## odyssey06 (18 May 2020)

This is the "Return to Work Safety Protocol" published on the gov.ie site.

It doesn't mention specifically the age of employees, but note the questions in Section #4.

Have you been advised by a doctor to self-isolate at this time? Yes/No, 
Have you been advised by a doctor to cocoon at this time? Yes/No.


----------



## Purple (18 May 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> This is the "Return to Work Safety Protocol" published on the gov.ie site.
> 
> It doesn't mention specifically the age of employees, but note the questions in Section #4.
> 
> ...


Thanks odyssey, I used the same document to modify our risk assessment, operations manual and training where I work last week.
It doesn't give any clarity for the guy in question but it was certainly written by a trade union official, what with all the references to "wurkers" and employers.


----------



## odyssey06 (5 Jun 2020)

Just noting that the documentation for England is much more extensive. 
It distinguishes between clinically vulnerable and clinically extremely vulnerable.
An over 70 without underlying condition would be classed as *clinically vulnerable*.

From office work:
_If clinically vulnerable (but not extremely clinically vulnerable) individuals cannot work from home, they should be offered the option of the safest available on site roles, enabling them to stay 2m away from others. If they have to spend time within 2m of others, you should carefully assess whether this involves an acceptable level of risk. As for any workplace risk you must take into account specific duties to those with protected characteristics, including, for example, expectant mothers who are, as always, entitled to suspension on full pay if suitable roles cannot be found _









						Reducing the spread of respiratory infections, including COVID-19, in the workplace
					

Public health principles for reducing the spread of respiratory infections, including COVID-19, in the workplace.




					www.gov.uk


----------

