Site icon Workplace Wellbeing Professional

Paul Ball: Pets at Work – Great Idea or Legal Headache?

brown and white long coated dog sitting on white table

As a nation of dog lovers, it’s no surprise more employers are embracing pet-friendly policies. Having pets in the office can boost morale, reduce stress, and encourage employees to take breaks and move more. For many businesses, it is seen as a perk that supports wellbeing and recruitment.

But before employers roll out the welcome mat for furry friends, there are some important legal and practical issues to consider. A well-intentioned policy could quickly become a legal headache if not managed carefully.

Health and Safety Considerations

Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, employers owe duties to employees to ensure they protect the health, safety and welfare of individuals in the workplace. Having pets in the workplace can lead to risks such as allergies, bites, and trip hazards, so a thorough risk assessment is essential before implementing any policy.

As part of the risk assessment, employers should think carefully about how to manage potential hazards linked to pets in the workplace. Practical steps might include requiring proof of vaccinations before pets are allowed on-site, creating designated pet-friendly and pet-free zones, and ensuring that animals are supervised by their owners at all times.

Insurance and Landlord Consent

Before introducing pets to the office, employers should check that any insurance policy covers incidents involving animals and any potential property damage. Additionally, if premises are leased, the employer should review the terms of the lease, as bringing animals onto the site is likely to require landlord approval.

The landlord may also need to review their own insurance arrangements and consult other tenants before granting consent.

Employee Objections

Not everyone will feel comfortable with pets in the workplace. Employees with underlying health conditions such as allergies or asthma may be affected by coming into contact with, or even being in close proximity to, certain animals.

Additionally, employees may have a phobia of certain types of animals. Any of these situations may result in the employee finding the presence of animals at their place of work difficult or distressing to deal with.

Potential Disability Discrimination

Where an underlying health condition has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on an individual’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, it may amount to a disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). This could include the above conditions described in the ‘Employee Objections’  section above.

In such cases, employees are legally protected against any less favourable treatment which may be directly or indirectly related to their disability, and employers also have a duty to make reasonable adjustments. Accordingly, an employer should consider:

Reasonable Adjustments

Reasonable adjustments might include:

The goal when implementing reasonable adjustments is to remove or reduce any disadvantage caused by a pet-friendly policy on an employee with a disability, while balancing the benefits this policy may have on other employees’ mental wellbeing.

Discrimination Arising from Disability

Reasonable adjustments should always be considered carefully and ideally agreed with the employee. Making decisions without the employee’s consent (i.e., requiring them to work from home when they do not wish to, so as to allow other employees to benefit from bringing their pet into work, or excluding them from meetings or events) can create additional legal risks. The employee may view this as unfavourable treatment, which could amount to discrimination arising from disability. In such cases, the employee could bring a claim under section 15 of the EqA 2010 against the employer.

Indirect Discrimination

In addition to the above, a pet-friendly policy permitting employees to bring their pets into the workplace could amount to a Provision, Criterion, or Practice (PCP) that places employees with disabilities that mean they require the workplace to be pet-free at a disadvantage compared to employees without that disability.

This could lead to an indirect discrimination claim under section 19 of the EqA 2010 unless the employer can show the policy is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Objective Justification Defence

In both discrimination arising from disability and indirect disability discrimination cases, the key question for employers is whether implementing a pet-friendly policy is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. While employers may argue that pets improve wellbeing and reduce stress, such justification must be carefully balanced against health and safety and equality obligations.

The most likely legitimate aim would be the overall improvement of employee welfare. However, the employer would still need to show that introducing a pet-friendly policy was a proportionate way of seeking to improve employee welfare. In assessing this, a relevant factor would be whether there were other ways that the employer could have acted to achieve the same overall outcome but with less of an impact on the disabled person. As an example, an office-based business who introduced a pet-friendly workplace policy which applied every day of the week and to every floor of its office might struggle to justify this if employees only came into the office, say, two days a week on average and without considering whether the policy could be implemented on a limited basis, e.g. on certain floors of the building and not others.

Each case will be fact-specific, depending on the terms of the proposed policy and the nature of the disabled employee’s condition. Therefore, we recommend that employers seek legal advice before proceeding in these circumstances.

Top Tips: A pet-friendly policy that might work for everyone

Even though the good intention behind a pet-friendly policy is unlikely to be in dispute, a poorly thought-through policy or one which is implemented on a blanket basis could easily backfire, leading to frustration, upset and potentially even formal grievances or claims. In addition to carrying out a thorough risk assessment, employers should take further steps to ensure the policy is fair, practical, and inclusive. Key recommendations include:

Exit mobile version