The 32,000 businesses based in the Square Mile need to think carefully before insisting that staff turn up for work as usual next week during the demonstrations planned to coincide with the G20 summit - which is being held in London on 2 April. Failure to reach an appropriate compromise between meeting the needs of the business and protecting the welfare of staff could prove to be a very expensive mistake and even lead to a company being prosecuted for corporate manslaughter.
As speculation mounts that the G20 summit is likely to attract hardline and possibly violent protests, City businesses must put in place a series of well-planned contingency measures according to Jon Heuvel, head of the employment team at London and South East law firm Penningtons Solicitors LLP and chairman of the skills and employment forum at the London Chamber of Commerce & Industry.
As employers, businesses have a duty to ensure the health and safety of their staff. They should not either directly or by implication force people to travel in against the advice of the authorities and thereby put them at risk. Jon Heuvel explains: "If something were to happen to an employee en route to work in such circumstances, there is a real risk that the employer could be held liable. Forcing an employee to expose him or herself to personal physical risk following public safety announcements warning people not to travel is at best reckless. In an extreme situation, it is action which could give rise to the employer being prosecuted for corporate manslaughter."
However, companies which are already struggling amid the current economic crisis cannot simply shut up shop for the day every time such warnings are issued - the recent chaos caused by the heavy snowfalls in February is a case in point. Employers should ensure that a suitable individual is identified to act as co-ordinator on the day and that everyone is clearly informed as to what is going to be expected. If the conditions are sufficiently hazardous that the business should not be encouraging people to come in, that message will need to be communicated by the coordinator to all staff as quickly as possible (eg via text message). It should not be forgotten that individual members of staff also have an obligation not to expose themselves recklessly to risk. It is appropriate to put some of the responsibility on them, and to say that if people feel that they would not be safe getting to their normal place of work, they should inform their line manager.
For members of staff who do not get in touch or agree alternative arrangements beforehand, the consequences should be made clear in advance - probably that the absence will be regarded as holiday /unpaid leave. Jon comments: "Businesses need to be careful not to impose such draconian consequences that the stated policy is tantamount to forcing individuals to attempt to come into work. Line managers should be prepared to be flexible - if there is work that someone can reasonably do from home, or from another location, that may be a convenient compromise. Adopting sensible, pragmatic policies of this nature will also avoid the risk of personal injury claims or corporate manslaughter charges, which, if proved, would result in an unlimited fine against the business."