Lawyers at A&L Goodbody (ALG) say that the outcome of a recent case on remote working at the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) will be welcomed by employers.

A code of practice on the right to request remote working was published in March, after the enactment of the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 last year.

In a note on the firm’s website, the ALG lawyers highlight what they believe to be the first reported case taken by an employee after the code’s publication.

ALG acted in defence of the claim in Alina Karabko v TikTok Technology Ltd, in which the complainant argued that the company had failed to consider her needs in refusing her application for fully remote work.

Obligations

The employee had started work in early 2022, during the COVID pandemic, and was allowed to work from home initially. The respondent later introduced a hybrid working model, which allowed two days a week of remote work.

The WRC observed that section 21 of the 2023 act imposed three specific obligations on employers, as follows:

• Employers must consider a remote-working request having regard to its needs, the employee’s needs and the requirements of the code,
• Employers must either approve a request for remote working or notify the employee in writing of its refusal within four weeks of the receipt of the request, or
• Extend this period by a further eight weeks to adequately consider a request, before responding.

The WRC acknowledged that the complainant had made a comprehensive case for full- time remote work, but found that the company had complied with each of the requirements set out in the legislation.

Limitations on WRC’s role

“This case will undoubtedly be welcomed by employers as it reiterates that the right in the act and under the code is to request remote working, not to remote work,” the ALG lawyers state.

“The case also highlights the statutorily prescribed limitations on the role of the WRC in considering claims under the act by employees aggrieved at the fact their remote working request has not been approved,” they continue.

“The fact that the WRC is not empowered to look behind the merits of an employer’s decision might come as a surprise and disappointment to many employees, but this case confirms what the act provides in that regard,” the lawyers say.

From an employer’s perspective, the ALG note says that the case outlines the procedural steps that must be taken to comply with the law.

The firm’s lawyers conclude that, while this might be the first reported case of its kind, “we have no doubt that it will not be the last”.

RTÉ reports that figures released by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment show that, up to 30 July, 18 people had made complaints to the WRC about remote or flexible working.