LEGAL IAN SKUSE
DOING YOUR DUTY W
Today’s world demands a greater focus on duty-of-care obligations
e live in an increasingly dangerous world,
and risk profiles for some destinations are changing. The spread of terrorist attacks affecting mainstream European destinations, as well as traditional target areas, means that the duty-of-care of an employer increases in importance. Recent health warnings about the Zika virus should concern employers sending employees to the Americas. Some 28 countries are already affected, with a threat of the virus spreading into North America. These issues place additional burdens on employers to review health and safety issues for their travellers, and to raise risk awareness. There may be potential legal claims where incidents occur, and management of employees who may be reluctant to travel to these destinations might have to be dealt with.
DUTY-OF-CARE The traditional definition of duty-of-care (Smith v Baker [1891]) is that “an employer must carry on its operations so as not to subject those employed by it to unnecessary risk”. This includes any reasonably foreseeable risk that the employer can guard against.
120 BBT MARCH/APRIL 2016
Recent health warnings about the Zika virus should concern employers sending employees to the Americas
The employer is expected to update its knowledge of any change in risk or dangers arising with travel overseas. The overseas offices where the employee might work should be safe, and if any particular risk or danger is known, then reasonable measures should be taken to protect employees working there. The legal obligation to protect employees is likely to be set out in the domestic laws of the destination country as well as under English law. Failure to provide a safe work place might give rise to liability in civil claims, and to criminal liability when the laws and regulations are ignored.
While employers’ risk management should be proportionate and not unnecessarily costly,
employers should have written procedures in place to cover known risks and they should carefully monitor changes or developments. So what should the corporate employer do? Not all risks are the same. In some cases it may be the availability of security at hotel accommodation or advice about dangerous local areas to avoid, the ability to track employees and the ability to obtain enhanced intelligence where the risk profile may change quickly. Some factors to consider are:
risk assessment taking into account the known risks and how this can be communicated to the business traveller.
publicly available websites such as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, ABTA (the Association of British Travel Agents) and the Department of Health, as well as the employers own local intelligence.
emergency repatriation plan if matters become unsafe or dangerous.
can include risks such as asset protection, kidnap and ransom, war risk and repatriation.
REFUSAL TO TRAVEL English employment law is likely to apply to travellers working here who are asked to travel overseas. An employee might refuse to travel to a country
affected by particular risks. If the risk is high, it may be unreasonable to discipline the employee or terminate their employment. The latest medical and safety information should determine whether decisions made are reasonable or not. Similarly, managing an employee refusing to go to their place of work due to safety and risk will depend on the facts of each case and whether that refusal is reasonable. The leisure travel sector often takes the lead with decisions regarding allowing people to change their holiday destinations because of safety and when travellers may receive a full refund if they wish to cancel. This has been significant since the terrorist attacks in Tunisia and Egypt and, currently, some tour operators are allowing passengers to change holidays from areas affected by the Zika virus. The business traveller is often not given these choices. Employees need to carefully consider the consequences of any unreasonable refusal to travel to a particular destination when risk arises, and employers must consider the decision to send the traveller to certain countries in the first place.
Ian Skuse is a partner in Blake Morgan’s Aviation team (
blakemorgan.co.uk) and is based in their London office. Ian was a partner with Piper Smith Watton LLP, which merged with Blake Morgan LLP in August 2015.
BUYINGBUSINESSTRAVEL.COM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124