Is RTO pledge legal

U

UltimateParody

New Member
Jurisdiction
Tennessee
My employer is requiring everyone to sign a Return to Office pledge that stipulates basic safety practices as part of returning to any of their offices.
These include..
- Maintain emerg contact info
- Notify HR if positive test for Covid
- Stay home when sick
- Be flexible to shift/rotate hours based on safety
- comply with company safety protocols when in the office
- ensure you adhere to applicable country / state / local Covid travel restrictions
- attend security / risk / human capital meetings as required
- participate in routine temp checks upon entering a building

My questions are..
- Since they have not indicated any consequences if not followed should I sign?
- Not sure how conflicting country/state/local restrictions will be handled and/or enforced on their part. Should I ask?
- As I have told them I am not returning to an office (will be full-time remote) I do not want to sign as this is not applicable to me yet they insist I sign. Should I refuse as why sign a legal doc that doesn't pertain to me?

Thanks for your feedback…
 
I can't see anything in the above that would be in any way illegal for them to enforce even if you don't sign the form. They could also terminate you if you refuse to sign.

Why do you think it doesn't apply to you?
 
PayrollHRGuy said:
I can't see anything in the above that would be in any way illegal for them to enforce even if you don't sign the form. They could also terminate you if you refuse to sign.

Why do you think it doesn't apply to you?
Click to expand...
Because I will not be returning to any of their offices - I will be working from home remotely. Also how can they ask that I comply with country/state/local travel guidelines when that is my personal business (travel) and conflicts may exist (i.e.: TN vs CA guidelines) so who decides which I need to follow?

And if they terminate me would it be for cause? Note that I am over 60yrs old…
Note that this travel item is the only one where I am hesitant to sign… all others are no problem in theory…
 
UltimateParody said:
Because I will not be returning to any of their offices - I will be working from home remotely. Also how can they ask that I comply with country/state/local travel guidelines when that is my personal business (travel) and conflicts may exist (i.e.: TN vs CA guidelines) so who decides which I need to follow?
Click to expand...

You are still an employee. There could be any number of reasons you would be needed to go to the office.

The state and local guidelines depend on where YOU are doing the work. If that is TN then you follow those rules/laws/guidelines.

As mentioned you can be terminated for any reason and one of those reasons is to not sign off saying you understand and agree to follow employer rules.
 
I understand… but not sure how my travel habits impact my employment. Let's say I live in CA and travel to FL for a month and work remotely from there. Is it any concern to my employer where I am or what my travels are since I am not in an office?
 
UltimateParody said:
Because I will not be returning to any of their offices - I will be working from home remotely.
Click to expand...

But they apparently want to treat all employees the same and ensure they'll follow the rules the employer is setting out. The employer may do that. If you won't ever be going into the office or traveling then it appears this shouldn't be a big deal to you. If you don't oppose anything they are requiring you to do then again this shouldn't be a big deal to you. If you object to one or more of the things the employer wants, that's when there is a problem. So what exactly do you object to?

UltimateParody said:
Also how can they ask that I comply with country/state/local travel guidelines when that is my personal business (travel) and conflicts may exist (i.e.: TN vs CA guidelines) so who decides which I need to follow?
Click to expand...

When in TN you follow TN rules, when in CA you follow CA rules. When traveling between them by air, train, or other common carrier you also need to follow the carrier's rules.

UltimateParody said:
And if they terminate me would it be for cause?
Click to expand...

Your age is not a factor here. Whether it is for cause or not doesn't matter. In all but one state (and TN is not that state) an employer does not need good cause to terminate you. If you are asking whether you'd qualify for unemployment compensation if terminated over refusal to sign, that's another matter.
 
None of your questions really raise any legal issues.

UltimateParody said:
Since they have not indicated any consequences if not followed should I sign?
Click to expand...

I can't think of any good reason why the opinions of anonymous strangers on the internet should matter. That being said, the consequences of not following could be any level of adverse employment action (up to termination) and (for the state and local regulations part, criminal prosecution).

UltimateParody said:
Not sure how conflicting country/state/local restrictions will be handled and/or enforced on their part. Should I ask?
Click to expand...

Well...that's what folks usually do when there is information they don't know but want to know.

UltimateParody said:
As I have told them I am not returning to an office (will be full-time remote) I do not want to sign as this is not applicable to me yet they insist I sign. Should I refuse as why sign a legal doc that doesn't pertain to me?
Click to expand...

This is nothing but a repeat of the first question with some additional factual context, so the answer is the same.

UltimateParody said:
how can they ask that I comply with country/state/local travel guidelines when that is my personal business (travel) and conflicts may exist (i.e.: TN vs CA guidelines) so who decides which I need to follow?
Click to expand...

How can they ask? In writing. Verbally. Smoke signals....

I also don't understand what you mean by conflicts. "Guidelines" are not laws, and, in any event, CA laws apply in CA but not in TN, and vice versa.

UltimateParody said:
And if they terminate me would it be for cause?
Click to expand...

People who respond at this (or any other) message board have no way of knowing whether some hypothetical future termination would or would not be "for cause."
 
Last edited:
zddoodah - I appreciate the responses and sarcasm, especially where deserved… and should I read into your last response 'We have no way…' that there is some kind of multiple personality issue coming into play as opposed to responding for a plurality of folks, especially when your other responses are in the first-person singular?
 
UltimateParody said:
... and should I read into your last response 'We have no way…' that there is some kind of multiple personality issue coming into play as opposed to responding for a plurality of folks, especially when your other responses are in the first-person singular?
Click to expand...

The use of "we" is proper. We (collectively) have no way of knowing.
 
UltimateParody said:
should I read into your last response 'We have no way…' that there is some kind of multiple personality issue coming into play as opposed to responding for a plurality of folks, especially when your other responses are in the first-person singular?
Click to expand...

I will edit my prior response so that the meaning is clear for anyone desiring to be intentionally obtuse.
 
OP, you are making much more of this form than you need to. It is to cover the employer's ass should you bring COVID into the office. If that doesn't happen you will probably never hear of it again. And if you never go into the office you don't have anything to worry about. Sign it and forget it.

But if you do have to go into the office, you will probably be asked to fill out a brief survey (have you tested positive, have traveled out of county or state, and such) and have your temperature checked.
 
I never thought when I woke up this morning that I'd be saying this, but I agree entirely with welkin.
 
It's not often that welkin and I agree but in this case I can't argue with a single word in his post - he's hit the nail straight on the head.
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top