Should Employees Be Paid If They Are Unable To Get To Work Due To Snow?

Wake Smith Solicitors 22 January 2015

Waking up to snow, whilst fun for some, is stressful for others if they find themselves unable to get to work. Are employees entitled to get paid if they are unable to attend work due to snow and other extreme weather conditions? This is a frequently asked questions, by both employers and employees at this time of year. In most circumstances, there is no legal right for an employee to be paid by their employer, if they are unable to attend work due to snow. Employees are obliged to attend the office unless they are sick, on holiday or on maternity leave etc. Therefore, the onus is on employees to get into work and this applies even in extreme weather conditions. If the workplace is open and employees cannot make it to work because they are 'snowed in' one view is that the employer is entitled to treat their absence as unauthorised and they are under no obligation to pay them. However, some employers may have contractual collective or implied terms and conditions through custom and practice which provides for payment in these circumstances. There has been some suggestion that this general approach could be challenged in the Courts and that employees have the right to be paid if the reason for their non-attendance is not their fault. However, in the absence of any right for payment and if there is no custom and practice for making such payments, it is likely to be difficult for an employee to make a strong legal case that they should be paid for this time. Of course, even if there is no right for payment for an employee unable to attend work due to snow, employers do have the discretion to make such a payment to an employee, should they wish to do so. If an employee's normal mode of transport is out of action due to severe weather disruption, the employer may wish to encourage employees to explore alternative means of transport. However, an employee should not feel under pressure to risk their safety to get to the office and so it may be sensible to consider whether employees could usefully work from home, until the weather situation has improved. If in fact working from home is not a viable option, an alternative may be to allow employees to take the time off as paid holiday on short notice. ACAS, in its travel disruption guide, suggests that 'a more flexible approach is taken to matters such as working and location may be effective, if possible. The handling of bad weather and travel disruption can be an opportunity for an employer to enhance staff morale and productivity by the way it is handled.' It is likely that most employers will look at taking a balanced approach. They will be concerned that paying all staff who say that they are unable to get to work is not without its risk as it may encourage some employees not to make the effort. As well as considering how those who cannot make it to work should be paid, many employers will also be concerned to ensure that those who do make it in have their efforts recognised. An employer should therefore assess whether overall paying employees who do not make it to the office would be in the best interests of the business. It could well be the case that the financial burden to the business of paying staff in these circumstances is either outweighed by the benefits that such a gesture would have on staff morale in the long term, especially if the snowfall is particularly heavy and it is very difficult to get to the workplace. It is useful to have an Adverse Weather and Travel Disruption Policy. This can be included in a Staff Handbook and it sets out what would happen if employees cannot make it to work because of extreme weather, public transport strikes or similar reasons. This will make your policy in the area clear to all concerned. Such a policy can be drafted by the Employment Team at Wake Smith LLP. For further information please contact Glenn Jaques at [email protected] or on 0114 2666660.




May 20226April 20223March 20223February 20223January 20224December 20214November 20213October 20215September 20216August 20212July 202111June 20218May 20216April 20212March 20219February 20218January 20219December 20208November 202013October 20209September 20208August 20203July 20208June 202016May 202013April 20209March 202016February 20209January 202012December 20199November 20199October 201911September 20197August 20194July 20196May 20198April 20196March 20193February 20195January 20194December 20186November 20185October 20183September 20185August 20184July 20189June 20184May 201810April 20185March 20184February 20184January 20183December 20175November 20178October 20177September 20179August 20175July 20176June 201710May 20176April 20178March 201711February 20177January 201713December 20169November 20167October 201610September 201611August 20166July 20167June 20163May 20162April 20166March 20162February 20164January 20165December 20153November 20155October 20156September 20156August 20157July 20157June 20157May 20156April 201510March 20156February 201510January 20156December 20145November 20144October 20142September 20143May 20144March 20146February 20144January 20142December 20132November 20133September 20134July 20132June 20132May 20133April 20131March 20133February 20133January 20136December 20121November 20123October 20122August 20122July 20128June 20123April 20123March 20121January 20124December 20112November 20111October 20112September 20113August 20113July 20117June 20119May 20117April 20115March 20119February 20118January 20111December 20101October 20102September 20102August 20103July 20106June 20101May 20102April 20106March 20102February 20103January 20102December 20095November 20092October 20092September 20092August 20091July 20095June 20095May 20093April 20093March 20093February 20091January 20092November 20082October 20082September 20081August 20083July 20081January 20082

Featured Articles

Contact us