Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Thomas  Farrell

Salesforce

Representatives

Zelda Cunningham, Internal  Counsel

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by an Adjudication Officer under s27 of the Work life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023

CA-00064708-001

11/07/2024

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 16 September 2021 as an Employee Recruiter. He stated that the Respondent delayed in responding to his request to work remotely and that the remote working policy was applied inconsistently in the organisation.

In June 2023, the Complainant’s manager and director approved an agreement allowing him to relocate to the west of Ireland due to personal circumstances. Under this agreement, the Complainant would continue working remotely, attending the office as needed.

On 20 May 2024, the Complainant’s line manager communicated to her team that employees would be required to attend the office between 3 and 4 days a week.

Further to this communication, on 10 June 2024, the Complainant submitted a formal request under the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 to continue working fully remotely. The request highlighted the following:

·        The Complainant’s relocation due to his partner’s employment.

·        The unsustainability of a 550km daily round-trip commute.

·        The Complainant’s proven performance in a remote capacity.

·        Inconsistencies in the Respondent’s return-to-office policy, which allowed other employees in similar roles to work remotely.

The Respondent failed to reply to the Complainant’s request to continue working remotely until 11 July 2024, which was outside of the four-week period after he had submitted his request as set out in the Act.

The substantive decision on the Complainant’s request was not issued until 26 July 2024—six weeks and four days after the request was submitted. The Respondent rejected the request, stating reasons that included the promotion of collaboration, the need for in-person meetings with hiring managers, and alignment with the Respondent’s global hybrid working strategy. These reasons contradicted prior agreements and internal communications that had explicitly removed in-person meetings from the Complainant’s responsibilities.

Following an internal grievance in August 2024, the company acknowledged in December 2024 that they had not replied within the four-week deadline and changed the reasoning for the rejection of his request, from hiring manager meetings to ‘Hybrid work model”, further compounding the initial reason behind the rejection and creating a contradiction.

The Complainant also highlighted that the same management team who rejected his request facilitated another team member who was in a similar situation to the Complainant to ensure they were not required to be in office each required day.

The Respondent acknowledged that on 10 June 2024, the Complainant submitted a formal request to continue working remotely but that they did not respond to the request until 11 July 2024, two days later than permitted in the Act, which they stated was attributable to human error.

The Respondent did not accept however that it failed to comply with its obligations by not considering and responding to the Complainant’s request. Specifically, they stated that they replied to his request on 26 July 2024, six weeks and four days after the Complainant’s request and within the eight-week deadline stipulated in the Act.

The Respondent stated that they refused to grant a fully remote contract but confirmed to the Complainant that he could work 2 days per week remotely. The rationale behind the refusal was (i) to promote collaboration/learning, (ii) meeting recruitment partners and (iii) the business direction, namely the Respondent’s global return to office strategy.

The Law:

The long title of the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 (“the Act”) states that its purpose is,

“…to give further effect to Directive (EU) 2019/1158 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on work-life balance for parents and carers and repealing Council Directive 2010/18/EU and, for that purpose and other purposes, to amend the Parental Leave Act 1998 to provide for the entitlement of certain employees to leave for medical care purposes and domestic violence leave and to request flexible working arrangements for caring purposes; to provide for the entitlement of employees to request remote working arrangements.”

From this, it is apparent that the purpose of the Act is to place a legal obligation on employers to provide a process for and to facilitate employees to request remote working.  This provision is set out at s.20(1) of the Act which provides that an employee may request approval from their employer for a remote working arrangement.  Section 20(3) sets out the manner in which an employee may apply for remote working, stipulating that an application must be in writing and must be submitted eight weeks in advance of the proposed date of commencement of the remote working. 

Section 21 sets out the obligation on the employer to consider a request for remote working under s.20:

(1) An employer who receives a request for a remote working arrangement submitted in accordance with section 20(3) shall -

(a) consider that request, having regard to -

(i) his or her needs,

(ii) the employee’s needs, and

(iii) the requirements of the code of practice,

and

(b) as soon as reasonably practicable but, subject to subsection (2), not later than 4 weeks after receipt of the request -

(i) approve the request, which approval shall include an agreement prepared and signed by the employer and employee setting out -

(I) the details of the remote working arrangement, and

(II) the date of the commencement and the expiration, if any, of the remote working arrangement,

(ii) provide a notice in writing informing the employee that the request has been refused and of the reasons for the refusal, or

(iii) where subsection (2) applies, provide a notice in writing to the employee that the employer has extended the 4 week period under this subsection for a further period specified in the notice.

(2) Where an employer is having difficulty assessing the viability of the request for a remote working arrangement, the employer may extend the 4 week period referred to in subsection (1) by a further period not exceeding 8 weeks.

(3) When the agreement referred to in subsection (1)(b)(i) is signed by the employer and the employee, the employer shall retain the agreement and provide a copy of the agreement to the employee who shall retain it.

Findings:

The Respondent highlighted that this complaint was received by the WRC on 17 July 2024, six days after the Complainant had received the Respondent’s notification that they required more time to consider his request to work remotely. The complaint to the WRC was therefore submitted before the eight week’s maximum deadline for the Respondent’s substantive response to have been provided.

In these circumstances, I accept the Respondent’s argument that only the delay in their initial response—specifically, the failure to reply within four weeks of the Complainant’s request—can be considered in this case. Matters arising after the complaint was referred to the WRC, including the substantive reasons for denying the Complainant’s remote working request, are not relevant, as those reasons were only provided to him by the Respondent after the referral of his WRC complaint.

In making a decision on this issue alone, specifically the delay in the Respondent’s initial response, I find that, in the absence of any compelling reasons having been provided by the Respondent for the failure to consider the request within the four-week deadline under the Act which expired on 9 July 2024, this complaint is well founded.

I find that this complaint is well founded for the reasons set out above.

In considering the amount of compensation to award, I noted in the first instance that the Respondent provided no compelling reasons for the failure to consider the request within the four-week deadline under the Act which expired on 9 July 2024, stating that it was attributable to human error. I also noted however that the delay was minor in that it was only a few days after the deadline when the Complainant was notified that the Respondent required more time to consider his request to work remotely.

Considering all of the foregoing, I make an award of €1,000.