Maximum Award for Breach of Remote Working Legislation
Background
The Complainant lodged a claim under section 27 of the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023.
Summary of Complainant’s Case
The Complainant stated that she was employed by the Respondent as a Recruitment Administrator in April 2024 and her duties were that of administrative support. The Complainant stated that the first six months went very well and her performance review reflected that she was performing well in the role.
The Complainant states that at start of October 2024, a major event happened at home. The Complainant states that her then 13-year-old daughter was seriously sexually assaulted by a minor. She stated that the incident was very traumatic for all the family. The Complainant stated that her daughter was severely self-harming and had suicidal ideation and was under the care of Pieta services.
The Complainant stated that she was working five days a week in the office and given the traumatic events which unfolded, she made a request to the HR Manager, for an arrangement to work from home a few days of the week.
The HR Manager reverted to the Complainant on 4 October 2024 agreeing to an arrangement whereby the Complainant could work from home 2 days per week. A written agreement to this effect was signed by both the HR manager and the Complainant and it was stated in the document that the arrangement would be reviewed on a monthly basis. The Complainant stated that the written agreement also stipulated that any changes to the agreement would be communicated in advance.
The Complainant stated that in mid-December the MD of the company returned from India and stated that the arrangement was not working out and that the Complainant would have to return to the office the following day and that the arrangement was being revoked with immediate effect.
The Complainant stated that the manner in which the arrangement was revoked was abrupt and not in line with the agreement set out which both parties signed. The Complainant stated that with less than a day’s notice, she was summoned back to the office and had to try and prepare her daughter who was in an anxious and vulnerable state.
The Complainant stated that she requested from the HR Manager reasons in writing for the revocation of the working from home agreement. The HR Manager replied that the MD was under the impression the arrangement was for one month only.
The Complainant submitted that the Respondent was in breach of the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 and that she was penalised by the Respondent for exercising her entitlement to a remote working arrangement.
Summary of Respondent’s Case
The Respondent’s position was that the Complainant was at no time penalised within the meaning of the Act or in any manner for making the request for remote working.
The Respondent stated that it was a specialist recruitment and staffing company involved in the recruitment of nurses/care assistants from overseas in the health sector.
In its written submission to the WRC, the Respondent stated that the Complainant commenced employment on or about 3 April 2024 as an Administrator. The Respondent stated that in October 2024, the Complainant made a request for remote working; after careful consideration, the Respondent agreed to a trial arrangement for one month and then for the arrangement to be reviewed monthly thereafter.
It was submitted that the Respondent felt the arrangement was not working and requested the Complainant, in early December 2024, to return to the office and work as per her terms and conditions of employment.
The Respondent asserted that the Complainant had in no manner been penalised within the definition of Penalisation as set out in Section 26 of the Act. The Respondent stated that the Complainant was not suspended, laid off or dismissed; demoted or lost an opportunity, had her duties transferred or had a change to her place of work, and no change was made to her working hours or wages. It stated that the Complainant was not subjected to disciplinary action or any other penalty and was not the subject of coercion or intimidation.
The Respondent stated that the Complainant was not overly scrutinised nor was the Complainant’s performance dealt with through any formal mechanism. However, it stated that the Complainant’s attention to detail and frequent errors in completing forms and emails was mentioned to the Complainant. The Respondent stated that these interactions were not beyond the normal interactions and discussion with an Employee. The Respondent maintained that the Complainant was encouraged to take time and ensure the documentation was correct prior to sending as corrections once sent to the relevant government department take time and are more onerous to correct.
In conclusion, the Respondent submitted that the claim was entirely without merit and that the Complainant failed demonstrate a causal link between the making of a request for a remote working arrangement and her penalisation claim.
Findings and Conclusions
The Complainant alleged that the Respondent was in breach of the legislation and that she was penalised for exercising her right to a remote working arrangement, in that, her working from home arrangement was revoked incorrectly and with only one day’s notice and that following the revocation, she was subjected to an intimidating and hostile work environment, in that, she was being unfairly targeted by the MD of the Respondent.
The Respondent contended that the within claim was entirely without merit. The Respondent stated that the removal/revocation of the working from home arrangement did not conform with a claim of penalisation. It was submitted that the Complainant had not demonstrated a causal link between the making of a request for a remote working arrangement and her penalisation claim.
The Respondent stated that it accepted that the revocation of the working from home arrangement with only a day’s notice was not in line with the Code of Practice on Work Life Balance, in that, the Organisation did not give four weeks’ notice of the revocation. However, it stated that for the purposes of the within matter under the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023, the claim of penalisation was completely without merit.
On the basis of the evidence provided, the Adjudicator found that while the MD gave the impression that the HR manager was acting independently in respect of giving the Complainant the working from home arrangement and that there appeared to be miscommunication between the HR manager and the MD, the Managing Director was accountable through the principle of vicarious liability for the actions and conduct of its HR manager.
On balance, the Adjudicator found that the actions of the MD were unreasonable and went completely against the grain in terms of the Code of Practice on the right to request flexible and remote working.
On the basis of the totality of the evidence heard, the Adjudicator found that the Complainant was subjected to negative, retaliatory treatment following the revocation of the remote working arrangement in the form of a hostile work environment, excessive workload of duties above her grade, micromanagement and pressure which ultimately lead to her losing her job, a role that she took great pride in.
Having carefully reviewed all of the evidence presented in the within claim, the Adjudicator found that the Complainant had demonstrated a breach by the Respondent in its failure to fulfil its obligations under section 22 of the Act in respect of the revocation of the remote working arrangement.
The Adjudicator ordered the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the amount of €2,540 which equated to four weeks’ pay. The award was imposed to reflect the egregious nature of the treatment of the Complainant by the Respondent and the detrimental adverse impact on the Complainant.
Decision
The complaint was well founded and the Adjudicator ordered the Respondent to pay the Complainant the maximum compensation of four weeks’ pay.
Recommendations
This claim centred around the Respondent Managing Director’s decision to revoke a remote working arrangement with immediate effect, requiring the Complainant to return to the office the following day. The Respondent ultimately accepted that this did not comply with the procedural requirements set out in the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023.
This decision serves as a recent reminder of the risks of failing to keep pace with the evolving statutory entitlements that are available to Employees. Being unaware of or failing to follow the procedural requirements set out in the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 and the accompanying Code of Practice when granting, reviewing or revoking remote working arrangements exposes Organisations to avoidable financial and reputational risk.