Mixed views on flexibility rules as workers say code is toothless
Workers are unimpressed by the code of practice for employers and employees on the right to request flexible working and remote working.
A year on since the implementation of the new code, many workers remain unconvinced that the code has really empowered them in relation to their flexible and remote working rights.
In this Q&A interview, Joanne Hyde, partner at law firm Lewis Silkin Dublin, explains why workers have welcomed the clarity brought by the code. She also explains why many workers also feel the code leaves the control over any employee requests around flexible work options firmly in the hands of the employer.
What are the key changes that this new code has introduced?
The Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 introduced a number of legislative changes as follows:
An entitlement to up to five days paid domestic violence leave;
A right to request flexible working to provide personal care for a close relative who is in need of significant care for a serious medical reason;
A general right for all employees to request remote work In both the latter case, the legislation only gives a right to request the flexible or remote work, not a right to be approved for such an arrangement.
The Code of Practice which was published in March 2024 set out in detail the steps which an employee must take if requesting flexible or remote work and the steps that the employer must take on receipt of a request. The Code also sets out a non-exhaustive list of the considerations that an employer may give to a request.
What clarity has the new code brought to flexible and remote working requests?
Before the Code of Practice was introduced, there was a lack of clarity as to how employees could make a request for flexible or remote work and as to how employers were required to respond. The Code sets out in detail the processes for making and managing request and the relevant timelines. A standardised formal process assists employers in assessing requests in a consistent, objective, and reasonable manner. The Code assists with developing policies around the making and management of requests and includes template forms. While most workplaces had already introduced some element of hybrid working following the pandemic, there was still a lot of misconception as to what an employee was entitled to by way of flexible or remote working. From an employee perspective, the Code has legitimised flexible and remote working by putting them on a formal legislative footing. From an employer perspective, it gives greater clarity on how to manage requests and the factors to be considered.
Do all parties see the codes as striking a balance between business and personal needs?
Trade unions, politicians and employee representatives have been critical of the Code of Practice. The main criticism is that while the legislation and the Code provide a framework for employees to request flexible or remote work, there is no entitlement for employees to have those requests approved or even to challenge the reason for the refusal. Employers have significant discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny requests, and employees have limited recourse if their request is denied. The Code does not provide employees with a legal right to remote or flexible work, and there is basis for a complaint about the employer's decision to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).
The only complaint to the WRC is that the employer's decision was made without following the proper procedures outlined in the Code. The Code expressly states that the WRC does not have the legal power to assess the merits of the employer's decision. This means that even if an employee is unhappy about the refusal of a request, if the employer has followed the proper process in considering the request, there is no valid complaint to the WRC.
Recent cases taken to the WRC have confirmed this. The right has therefore been criticised as being meaningless or toothless. Employee representatives have also criticised the level of discretion open to employers in considering request. The Code sets out a lengthy list of the factors that an employer might consider, thereby giving employers a variety of reasons related to the job, its duties and its business needs which might be taken into account.
The employer does not necessarily need to take account of the employee's personal or individual circumstances. Others argue that the Code does nothing to address the risk of 'always on' cultures. This same criticism was levelled at the Code of Practice on the Right to Disconnect which was published in March 2021 and, likewise has had little real impact on working hours or cultures.
What will the changes mean for employers going forward?
Because the cases that have been decided thus far in the WRC have reinforced the reality that employers maintain full discretion over whether to approve or deny requests, employee and their legal advisors, may seek to utilize other legislation which give the WRC more effective rights to compensate employees and/or direct an employer to take a certain course of action. The most obvious are the Employment Equality Acts which prohibit discrimination on the basis of a number of protected characteristics including family status, age, and disability.
Certain categories of employees such as parents, caregivers and employees with disabilities are more likely to request remote work. If their requests are disproportionately denied when compared to requests of other employees, the employer's policy may be indirectly discriminatory. Where employees have a disability, there is a proactive obligation on employers to provide reasonable accommodation to enable the person to do their job, unless the accommodation represents a disproportionate burden on the employer. If an employee positions a request for flexible or remote working as being an accommodation for a medical condition (for themselves or a close family member), employers will not have the same discretion in refusing the request.
Read More
Business movers: People starting new jobs in Ireland
The fact that the Code of Practice is widely seen as being imbalanced and more on the side of business and employers means that there may be pressure for further legislative reform, including giving the WRC the ability to consider the fairness or reasonableness of the employer's decision rather than overseeing adherence to the processes for considering the requests. Employees in some sectors where remote working is more difficult to implement (such as healthcare, manufacturing, and retail) complain that sectoral specific guidelines should be introduced to give them access to any form of flexible working.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
6 days ago
- Irish Examiner
Watchdog orders Elon Musk's X to clarify how it will protect children on its platform
Ireland's media regulator has ordered Elon Musk-owned X to clarify how it will protect children on its platform or risk 'criminal liability', it has said. Coimisiún na Meán said it was using its statutory powers to compel X, formerly Twitter, to provide information on how it will comply with specific sections of the Online Safety Code, which has been challenged by X through a judicial review in the High Court. 'Information provided by X so far is not sufficient to assess whether X's current measures are sufficient to protect children using the service,' it said. 'Under Part A of the Code, designated platforms must establish and operate age verification systems for users with respect to content which may impair physical, mental, or moral development of minors.' The Online Safety Code sets binding rules on major platforms that also include Facebook and YouTube to prohibit harmful content like cyberbullying, racism, or incitement to hatred. It also makes it incumbent on platforms to have robust age assurance such as verifying a passport photo to prevent children from seeing pornography or gratuitous violence online, as 'merely asking users whether they are over 18 will not be enough'. Set to fully come into force next month, the code is binding on platforms including Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, X, Linkedin, Pinterest, Udemy and Tumblr. A number of judicial reviews have been launched by firms objecting to the code, including by X. A judgement is set to be delivered in this case by Mr Justice Conleth Bradley on July 25. While that remains pending, Coimisiún na Meán has said it is exercising its powers to tell X it must provide information relating to its compliance with the Online Safety Code. 'X is obliged to respond by July 22, 2025,' it said. 'Failure to comply with the notice by the provider can result in criminal liability, including a fine of up to €500k. 'An Coimisiún will review the response from X and will consider whether the platform has complied with its obligations under Part A of the Online Safety Code and will then determine if further measures should be taken. X was designated by Coimisiún na Meán as a video-sharing platform service in December 2023 and is consequently obliged to comply with the Online Safety Code. It comes after big tech firms including X were hauled in for a meeting with media minister Patrick O'Donovan on Monday with age verification high on the agenda. Separately, European commissioner for justice Michael McGrath has said that new European laws will prevent children from being exposed to 'dark patterns' online while new age checks will stop them accessing harmful content like pornography. He said that investigations into major platforms like Meta's Instagram and Facebook, TikTok and several pornographic websites are ongoing to ensure they are complying with child protection rules. 'The internet should be a place of opportunity for children, not a minefield of risks,' Mr McGrath said. Read More European laws will prevent children accessing harmful content online
Irish Examiner
30-05-2025
- Irish Examiner
Mixed views on flexibility rules as workers say code is toothless
Workers are unimpressed by the code of practice for employers and employees on the right to request flexible working and remote working. A year on since the implementation of the new code, many workers remain unconvinced that the code has really empowered them in relation to their flexible and remote working rights. In this Q&A interview, Joanne Hyde, partner at law firm Lewis Silkin Dublin, explains why workers have welcomed the clarity brought by the code. She also explains why many workers also feel the code leaves the control over any employee requests around flexible work options firmly in the hands of the employer. What are the key changes that this new code has introduced? The Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 introduced a number of legislative changes as follows: An entitlement to up to five days paid domestic violence leave; A right to request flexible working to provide personal care for a close relative who is in need of significant care for a serious medical reason; A general right for all employees to request remote work In both the latter case, the legislation only gives a right to request the flexible or remote work, not a right to be approved for such an arrangement. The Code of Practice which was published in March 2024 set out in detail the steps which an employee must take if requesting flexible or remote work and the steps that the employer must take on receipt of a request. The Code also sets out a non-exhaustive list of the considerations that an employer may give to a request. What clarity has the new code brought to flexible and remote working requests? Before the Code of Practice was introduced, there was a lack of clarity as to how employees could make a request for flexible or remote work and as to how employers were required to respond. The Code sets out in detail the processes for making and managing request and the relevant timelines. A standardised formal process assists employers in assessing requests in a consistent, objective, and reasonable manner. The Code assists with developing policies around the making and management of requests and includes template forms. While most workplaces had already introduced some element of hybrid working following the pandemic, there was still a lot of misconception as to what an employee was entitled to by way of flexible or remote working. From an employee perspective, the Code has legitimised flexible and remote working by putting them on a formal legislative footing. From an employer perspective, it gives greater clarity on how to manage requests and the factors to be considered. Do all parties see the codes as striking a balance between business and personal needs? Trade unions, politicians and employee representatives have been critical of the Code of Practice. The main criticism is that while the legislation and the Code provide a framework for employees to request flexible or remote work, there is no entitlement for employees to have those requests approved or even to challenge the reason for the refusal. Employers have significant discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny requests, and employees have limited recourse if their request is denied. The Code does not provide employees with a legal right to remote or flexible work, and there is basis for a complaint about the employer's decision to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC). The only complaint to the WRC is that the employer's decision was made without following the proper procedures outlined in the Code. The Code expressly states that the WRC does not have the legal power to assess the merits of the employer's decision. This means that even if an employee is unhappy about the refusal of a request, if the employer has followed the proper process in considering the request, there is no valid complaint to the WRC. Recent cases taken to the WRC have confirmed this. The right has therefore been criticised as being meaningless or toothless. Employee representatives have also criticised the level of discretion open to employers in considering request. The Code sets out a lengthy list of the factors that an employer might consider, thereby giving employers a variety of reasons related to the job, its duties and its business needs which might be taken into account. The employer does not necessarily need to take account of the employee's personal or individual circumstances. Others argue that the Code does nothing to address the risk of 'always on' cultures. This same criticism was levelled at the Code of Practice on the Right to Disconnect which was published in March 2021 and, likewise has had little real impact on working hours or cultures. What will the changes mean for employers going forward? Because the cases that have been decided thus far in the WRC have reinforced the reality that employers maintain full discretion over whether to approve or deny requests, employee and their legal advisors, may seek to utilize other legislation which give the WRC more effective rights to compensate employees and/or direct an employer to take a certain course of action. The most obvious are the Employment Equality Acts which prohibit discrimination on the basis of a number of protected characteristics including family status, age, and disability. Certain categories of employees such as parents, caregivers and employees with disabilities are more likely to request remote work. If their requests are disproportionately denied when compared to requests of other employees, the employer's policy may be indirectly discriminatory. Where employees have a disability, there is a proactive obligation on employers to provide reasonable accommodation to enable the person to do their job, unless the accommodation represents a disproportionate burden on the employer. If an employee positions a request for flexible or remote working as being an accommodation for a medical condition (for themselves or a close family member), employers will not have the same discretion in refusing the request. Read More Business movers: People starting new jobs in Ireland The fact that the Code of Practice is widely seen as being imbalanced and more on the side of business and employers means that there may be pressure for further legislative reform, including giving the WRC the ability to consider the fairness or reasonableness of the employer's decision rather than overseeing adherence to the processes for considering the requests. Employees in some sectors where remote working is more difficult to implement (such as healthcare, manufacturing, and retail) complain that sectoral specific guidelines should be introduced to give them access to any form of flexible working.
The Journal
06-05-2025
- The Journal
Salesforce ordered to pay €1,000 to recruiter in first-ever compensation under remote work laws
A RECRUITER WHO relocated with his family to the west of Ireland under a remote work agreement has won €1,000 in compensation from Salesforce, over the company's failure to respond in time to a formal request for a remote work arrangement. The employee of the business software company told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) that they had gotten approval for an agreement allowing him to relocate and work fully remotely in the west of Ireland – but after less than a year, they were ordered to come back to the Salesforce office in Dublin for work. Salesforce, which has its European headquarters in Dublin, was found in breach of the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 for missing a four-week deadline for a response. According to the recruiter, both his manager and director at Salesforce approved an agreement for him to relocate in June 2023. Under this agreement, the recruiter would 'continue working remotely, attending the office as needed', the WRC heard. The move was for 'personal circumstances', the recruiter told the WRC. Less than a year later on 20 May 2024, the recruiter's line manager told her team that employees would be required to attend the office between three and four days a week. Following this, the recruiter submitted a formal request under the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 to continue working fully remotely. In the request, they highlighted that it would be a 550km round trip for him to commute to and from the office, and pointed to his 'proven performance in a remote capacity'. They also pointed to inconsistencies in Salesforce's return-to-office policy, which they said allowed other employees in similar roles to work remotely. The recruiter's complaint was submitted to Salesforce on 10 June 2024, but the company did not reply until over a month later on 11 July, when they told recruiter that they required more time to consider his request to work remotely. Advertisement This was outside the four-week period after they had submitted his request – as set out in the Act. The employee submitted an official complaint to the WRC on 17 July. A decision by Salesforce on the recruiter's request was not issued until 26 July 2024 – six weeks and four days after his request was submitted. Salesforce rejected the request for remote work, citing the 'need for in-person meetings with hiring managers', the 'promotion of collaboration' and alignment with the company's global hybrid working strategy. the recruiter argued that these reasons contradicted prior agreements with the company which had 'explicitly removed' in-person meetings from his responsibilities. A representative for Salesforce argued that the company had complied with legislation by responding to the request for remote work, adding that their failure to respond in time was 'attributable to human error'. WRC Adjudication Officer Breiffni O'Neill agreed with Salesforce's argument that they were only permitted to examine the company's failure to respond to the employee's request within the four-week period mandated by law. This meant they could not assess the underlying reasons for rejecting the request. O'Neill concluded that Salesforce had offered 'no compelling reasons' for missing the deadline, though they described the delay as 'minor.' They ordered the company to pay the recruiter €1,000 for the breach. They are the first person to win compensation in the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) for a breach of the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023, which came into force last year. The recruiter is the ninth complainant decided by the WRC under the Act. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
