The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has ruled on a case of an office worker who had to resign during the first lockdown when she was refused permission to work remotely. 

Adjudication officer Kevin Baneham said the worker had "no real option but to resign" after the employer failed to take reasonably practicable steps to offset the virus risk.

He ordered that €3,712 should be paid in compensation for the unfair dismissal on 12 May.

In her resignation letter on 12 May, the woman complained of anxiety and stress and panic attacks.  

Infection risk 

The university-based facilities manager, who helped manage 3,200 student bedrooms, wrote to her employer that the refusal to allow remote working "has increased the infection risk with COVID-19 for all three operations coordinators".

"In the event one of us gets sick I will be putting at risk my husband who is an asthmatic patient," she said.

In an email dated 17 April, the worker told her employer that she was not able to socially distance from her two colleagues in the workplace.

In a letter on 4 May, the employer wrote: "Prior to COVID-19 there was never a suggestion that the roles could be performed remotely, and the same situation pertains in a post-COVID situation." 

Review

"Each person may absent themselves from work and check if they are entitled to a state benefit. The position will be kept under review, but at present the employer’s position is that the three roles are not suitable for remote working.”

The employer said it had taken workplace precautions, including providing PPE, changing the physical layout of the office, the installation of screens and warning tape, and moving desks. 

The MD of the facilities management company told the WRC that they would not have allowed remote working since the job was essential, and required on-campus presence to deal with the students. 

He said in the situation, all staff needed to be present as the campus had students who were self-isolating.

The adjudication found that the employer did not implement the rota proposals made by three office workers that would have eliminated the risk of virus transmission.

The requirement to attend the workplace without adequate consideration of the elimination of virus risk "amounts to repudiation of contract", the adjudication continues.

Grievance

The worker had articulated a clear grievance and suggested how the work could be done in the safest way possible, the adjudication says. 

"As an infectious disease, COVID-19 constitutes a biological hazard. In this context and at the centre of this case are the duties of both employer and employee arising from the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act and the underpinning health and safety principles.”

The worker argued that most of the work could be completed from home, but with rotating presence in the office.

The woman was represented by SIPTU at the hearing.