Management is cautiously excited to re-open business after the lockdown. But an employee refuse work for fear of COVID-19 infection. What can be done?
Related: 5.25.2020- How to Humanely Terminate Employment in Times of COVID-19
Not too long ago, I wrote about employees right to refuse work because of COVID-19. It was not a biggie then because everyone are locked down in their homes. But since there is easing of the quarantine measures and businesses are now allowed to slowly re-open, there are heated debate both in open and closed spaces of social media about employee refusal to return to work.
Before I share practical management approach to deal with the problem, let’s review my previous article.
There are two prevailing schools of thought about the issue, (1) is Labor Advisory 01 Section 3 and (2) DO 198-18 Chapter III Section 6. So which one applies in a pandemic situation?
- LA 01- The existence of imminent danger resulting from man-made or natural calamity
- DO 198-18 – Imminent danger is confined inside company premises but may or may not be due to a calamity. Likely due to non compliance to international health and safety standards. Employer have reasonable control to create a safe environment ‘inside’ company premises but cannot guarantee the same outside the controlled spaces of work. An Imminent danger, in this issuance, needs to be determined by DOLE.
- Is the COVID-19 pandemic a natural calamity?
- Do we have an imminent danger situation?
- The declaration of state of calamity placing the nation under various quarantine categories and restricting movement of people, by the President, an acknowledgement of imminent danger?
- Assuming the company and its safety officers over complied with the minimum health and safety standards set by IATF, can they guarantee safety outside the work premises?
So between the two Government issuances, which one will likely be believed or embraced by employees?
The ‘imminent danger’ definition is the point of debate and I will leave it at that.
Going back to the purpose of this article, what can an employer or HR do, when an employee refuse work?
Here are my suggestions
- Comply with the minimum health and safety standards, the interim guidelines issued by IATF, DTI, DOH, DOLE Advisories and Oders, and even the ‘return to work guidelines’ being issued by various LGUs.
- Ensure that you are updated in your obligation to remit SSS, EC, Philhealth and related statutory benefits. Add to that, you are compliant to the exisitng Occupational Health and Safety Standards, and DO 198-18/ RA 11058
- If the company is able, give more. Provide shuttle service, temporary accommodation, do mass testings, give multi-vitamins, enroll employees to HMO/insurances, give hazard pay, etc. Please emphasize though that when extending these, it is only in response to the present situation, and this is not a permanent benefit.
- Acknowledge the prevailing ’employee belief’ that it is his/her right to refuse work onsite because of the present covid-19 danger, and s/he cannot be given administrative discipline for it. By recognizing this, it does not mean you agree (remember the debate)
- Determine among your roster, who can continue WFH, and who will need to report onsite.
- And among those needed to report onsite, assess (using the health checklist/survey form) each employee based on the guidelines issued by the government and/or best health practices, to determine who are eligible for on-site work.
- Using the first three items (points 1 to 3) as assurance, formally advise employees ‘who passed the assessment’ for on-site work (based on item 5), to return to work.
- If employee refuse work, revert back to WFH or explore other options. Negotiate for a win-win solution (LA 17-2020).
- If the job is not doable in WFH set-up, or employee is not cooperative, advise employee that s/he will be placed in a no work no pay status, for a minimum of 6 months (or request employee to file LWOP). Likewise, ensure that there is a clear policy about moonlighting during this period. Proper documentation is a must. Put in writing that employer have exercised due diligence for the safety and over-all welfare of employees, all options has been explored but at the end, employee invokes his right to refuse work.
Pursuing an administrative case against the employee for insubordination and/or abandonment is always on the table. If it is the most wise and value adding option, then pursue it.
- Augment your manpower and look for other employees who can take on the job
- Since there is an oversupply of talent in the market, you can also hire a temporary replacement for (the role) of employee concerned. This is the reason for the minimum of 6 months LWOP, so you can hire a temporary replacement
- When the state of calamity is lifted, advise again the concerned employee to return to work
- If employee still refused, by all means proceed filing applicable administrative case.
- If employee gladly return to work as advised, all is good. But if you are the type that hold grudge, you ‘may’ reflect employee attitude in applicable score cards or performance reviews, that have bearing on promotion, salary adjustment or performance bonus.
The first two is a must, though the 3rd is optional but a HUGE ‘pogi’ point in establishing ‘due diligence’ and ‘good faith’
Given the oversupply of talent in the market, what roles in your operations were affected by employee refusal to work, if any.
Founder of LODI Inc. (Learning and Organization Development Institute, Inc.) and Co-Founder of Blogwatch. Mentor and Dad of 2 Gen Z Professionals.
Advocate of #HRinHR (Human Rights in Human Resources) and #DigitalCitizenship
Strategist for Talent, Culture & Content Development, and Cyber Wellness Initiatives
Keynoter and Facilitator of Workplace and Life Learning
Blogging since 2004.