The Government formally launched a public consultation in November 2025 as part of the statutory review required under Section 29 of the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 .This consultation invited submissions from employees, employers and other stakeholders on how the legislation is working in practice, whether it is clear and accessible, and whether it has produced any unintended consequences since its introduction. The consultation formed part of the government’s commitment to ensure the legislation remains up to date and reflects real-world experience and is intended to inform recommendations on whether clarifications or changes are needed to support both employees and employers effectively as remote and hybrid work arrangements continue to evolve.

What the legislation requires in practice 

The Act gives eligible employees a statutory right to request a remote working arrangement. Employers must consider the request, having regard to both business needs and the employee’s reasons, and issue a written response within the prescribed timeframe. Importantly, the legislation does not create a presumption that remote working should be approved, nor does it override contractual place-of-work provisions.

One aspect of the Act has been particularly influential in shaping how disputes are resolved. Under  Section 27 of the Act, it limits the WRC’s role to assessing whether the employer complied with the required process. It does not permit an adjudication officer to examine whether the employer’s reasons were reasonable or proportionate, provided the statutory steps were followed. That distinction has proven decisive in the early case law.

What the WRC has said so far 

The clearest guidance to date comes from the recent TikTok decisions, including Zaurbek Musaev v TikTok Technology Ltd and Alina Karabko v TikTok Technology Ltd. In both cases, employees sought to work remotely on a permanent basis and challenged their employer’s refusal.

In Musaev, the employee lived a significant distance from the workplace and relied on personal and medical factors to support his request. TikTok engaged with the request, applied its internal procedures and issued a written refusal. The WRC accepted that the statutory process had been followed and confirmed that it had no remit to assess the substance of the decision itself. The complaint failed.

A similar approach was taken in Karabko, where the WRC again found that the employer had complied with its obligations under the Act and declined to interfere with the refusal once the procedural requirements were met.

What stands out from these decisions is not simply their outcome, the message is consistent, where employers engage properly with requests, document their reasoning and meet the statutory timelines, the WRC will not substitute its judgment for that of the organisation.

Hybrid working beyond the legal framework 

While the legal position is becoming clearer, the operational reality for employers remains complex. Hybrid working continues to present challenges around performance management, collaboration and equity between employees who are regularly present in the workplace and those who are not.

These challenges are often more pronounced in regulated or customer-facing sectors, where employers have increasingly emphasised structured hybrid attendance and office presence, citing governance, supervision and consistency.

By contrast, some employers have chosen to make flexibility a core part of their operating model. Organisations such as Spotify have adopted highly flexible “work from where you work best” approaches, placing greater emphasis on outputs, trust and role design rather than physical presence.

A more structured example can be seen in Phoenix Group, whose “Phoenix Flex” framework was developed following extensive consultation and piloting. Rather than treating hybrid working as an informal arrangement, the organisation assessed customer needs first, then team requirements, before considering individual preferences. Clear guidance, investment in technology and regular review were central to that approach.

These contrasting models highlight an important point. Hybrid working tends to be more effective where it is deliberately designed, clearly communicated and actively managed, rather than assumed to work by default.

What HR should focus on now 

HR teams should ensure that remote working requests are handled consistently and in line with the statutory framework. Policies should be clear, managers should understand the distinction between a right to request and an entitlement, and decisions should be properly documented. HR should also remain alert to situations where remote working requests overlap with health or wellbeing issues, which may require separate consideration under equality legislation. Organisations that get the process right and are clear about how hybrid working operates will be better placed to deal with changing expectations.

This article was provided by Caroline Reidy, Head of NFP HR Solutions Ireland Limited, HR and Employment Law Specialist.

Email: hrsolutions@nfpireland.ie

Tel: (066)7102887

For more information visit https://nfpireland.ie