WRC held in favour of employee where employer failed to follow statutory process regarding a remote working request.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent as an Employee Recruiter in September 2021. He claimed the Respondent delayed responding to his initial request to work remotely and applied its remote working policy inconsistently. In June 2023, he reached an agreement with management to relocate to the west of Ireland and continue working remotely. However, in May 2024, a directive was issued requiring employees to attend the office 3 to 4 days per week. A year later, in June 2024, the Complainant formally requested to continue working remotely under the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023, citing personal circumstances and performance history. The Respondent delayed its reply beyond the four-week statutory timeframe and ultimately rejected the request, offering reasons that contradicted previous agreements. A grievance raised in August 2024 led to a shift in the Respondent’s rationale, highlighting further inconsistencies. The Complainant also pointed to a colleague in a similar role who was granted remote work accommodations. 

The Respondent acknowledged that the Complainant submitted a formal request to continue working remotely in June 2024 and admitted they responded two days late, attributing the delay to human error. While accepting this minor delay, the Respondent denied breaching their obligations, noting that their final decision fell within the eight-week statutory limit. The Respondent refused the Complainant’s request for full remote work but offered a hybrid arrangement of two remote days per week. The refusal was based on promoting collaboration and learning, meeting recruitment partners, and aligning with the company’s global return-to-office strategy.

The Adjudicator found that the Respondent failed to comply with the statutory obligations under the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 by not responding to the Complainant’s remote working request within the required four-week period. Although the final decision was issued within the Act’s broader eight-week timeframe, the Respondent was still required to acknowledge and engage with the request promptly. The delay, albeit attributed to human error, constituted a procedural breach. Furthermore, the rationale provided for the refusal appeared inconsistent with the Complainant’s role and previous internal agreements that removed in-person meetings from his responsibilities. The Adjudicator also noted the inconsistent application of the remote working policy, as similar accommodations were granted to a colleague. These factors cumulatively indicated an unfair handling of the Complainant’s request. The claim was upheld, and the Complainant was awarded €1000 compensation for the breach of the statutory process.

Employers should:

• Always respond to remote working requests within the four-week period required by the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023. Delays, even if unintentional, may amount to non-compliance.
  
• Apply remote and hybrid working policies consistently across teams. Unequal treatment, especially where similar roles are granted differing arrangements, can lead to risks.  
  
• When refusing a remote work request, provide specific, accurate, and role-based reasons. Ensure these align with job duties and any prior agreements or internal practices to avoid contradictory justifications that may undermine your position.

The full case can be found here.