Background: 
The Complainant argued that the Respondent failed to properly consider her request for remote working in accordance with the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 and the associated Code of Practice. She asserted that the Respondent focused solely on its business needs, disregarding her personal circumstances and reasons for the request. Despite raising several concerns about the decision-making process, the Respondent provided limited responses during a follow-up meeting and suggested she file a grievance, which she declined, believing it would be ineffective. The Complainant disputed the Respondent's claim that her request was lawfully handled, asserting that her situation was not objectively or fairly considered. She has brought the case to the Workplace Relations Commission, contending that the Respondent's decision-making process was unfair and that Ireland’s accommodation difficulties and the nature of her work, which involves significant remote interaction, were not adequately addressed.

The Respondent argued that the Complainant's claim was legally misconceived and unfounded, asserting that her request for remote work was duly considered and denied in accordance with the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023. The Respondent emphasised that this Act allows for a request but does not guarantee approval. The Complainant's request was reviewed objectively, weighing her needs against business requirements, particularly the importance of in-person collaboration. Despite acknowledging the Complainant's preference for remote work, the Respondent maintained that its decision was valid, driven by a consistent policy applied across the organisation. The Respondent further highlighted that the WRC cannot assess the merits of the employer’s decision under the Act, only the process. The decision-making process was thorough, involving discussions with HR and management, but the request was ultimately denied to maintain productivity and consistency in the workplace. The Respondent offered the Complainant an opportunity to address her concerns via the grievance procedure, which she declined. The Complainant's appeal was also unsuccessful, leading her to lodge a complaint with the WRC. The Respondent asserted that it fully complied with its legal obligations.

Finding:  
The Adjudicating Officer found the Respondent complied with its legal obligations under the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023. The Complainant had requested to continue working remotely full-time due to personal reasons after the Respondent introduced a return-to-office policy. The Respondent carefully considered the request in line with the Act and the associated Code of Practice, which required them to evaluate both their own needs and the Complainant's needs. After thorough deliberation, the request was denied, and the Complainant was informed in writing within the required timeframe, along with the reasons for the refusal. The Adjudicating Officer found that the Respondent followed the proper procedures outlined in the Act and that the complaint was not well-founded.

Practical Guidance for Employers:  
Employers should implement:

• Consideration of Requests: Ensure all remote working requests are thoroughly reviewed, balancing both the employee's personal circumstances and the business needs.
• Document the Process: Keep detailed records of discussions, decisions, and the rationale behind accepting or rejecting remote work requests.
• Communication: Clearly communicate the decision and reasons for refusal in writing, within the legally required timeframe.
• Follow Legal Frameworks: Adhere strictly to the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 and any associated Codes of Practice/contracts.
• Grievance Procedures: Offer employees the opportunity to address concerns through formal grievance procedures.