Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mr Alexander Simonov

CPL Solutions Ltd T/A Covalen  [amended on consent at hearing]

Representatives

Mr Shane Murphy Communications Workers' Union

Ms Judy McNamara IBEC

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-00076606-001

20/10/2025

This matter came before the Workplace Relations Commission dated 20/10/2025.   The Complainant alleges a contravention by the Respondent of provisions of the above listed statute in relation to his employment with the Respondent.  The aforesaid complaint was referred to me for investigation.  A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 23/07/2026.  

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 10/03/2025.  The Complainant at all material times is employed as a Community Operations Analyst on a monthly salary of €3077.41 gross for which he works 37.5 hours per week.   

The Respondent is a provider of recruitment, staffing and outsourcing services for various sectors throughout the Republic of Ireland. 

The Complainant filed his complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. 

However, the narrative on the complaint form alleges a breach of the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023.  It is noted that the WRC complaint form is not a statutory form.  It is intended to set out the outline of a complaint or complaints, so that, and in line with fair procedures, the Respondent knows the issues it faces. 

The Respondent in the within case raised no objection to amending the claim. 

It is the Complainant’s case that he sent an email to his employer to work remotely on 17/09/2025 and, as of filing this complaint on 20/10/2025, he had not received a response. 

The Respondent acknowledges a breach of the act may have occurred. 

Both parties filed submissions together with supporting documentation in advance of hearing for which I am grateful. 

CA-00076606-001

Overview of written submission

In September 2025, I applied for remote working. The request was acknowledged as received but as of yet, no reply has been received.

18/09/2025 I sent a request for remote working by email. This was acknowledged as received by HR on the same day but no response has been received since then.

The Respondent breached Section 21 of the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 as they did not respond the remote work request within 4 weeks and still haven’t.

CA-00076606-001

Pursuant to an administrative error, the Respondent acknowledges that a breach of the Act may have occurred.  It is conceded that an application for remote working was made by the Complainant on 18th September 2025 at 1:04AM and was sent to a generic HR inbox and was inadvertently overlooked.  The acknowledgement of same, cited by the Complainant, is an automated email issued to all correspondence received by that Inbox. This was solely due to the administrative error noted above.

The Respondent has a robust process in place for considering and assessing such requests.  Under normal circumstances, if such requests were made to HR, employees would be furnished with a copy of the Respondent’s application form and health and safety questionnaire, which have been provided at Appendix 3, and be further advised to submit their request to the Operations Lead or Manager with responsibility for their Team.

The Claimant submitted his complaint to the WRC on 20th October, four days after the period specified in the Act, in circumstances where an employer has not invoked Section 20(2) of the Act cited above, which would extend the period to eight weeks.  While wholly acknowledging that there is no requirement for an employee to follow up on such requests, it is unfortunate that the Complainant did not follow up at any stage, within the initial four weeks, or prior to submitting his complaint to the WRC, considering that his submission now asserts that the delay of four days has left him ‘’with increased stress and uncertainty; ongoing anxiety; feeling undervalued and ignored; unable to plan his personal life; strain on his work-life balance; an eroded sense of trust in leadership; and emotional fatigue and burnout’’.  

The Respondent would respectfully submit that none of the medical diagnoses cited have been medically verified, nor has any documentation been adduced that align with the date of filing with the WRC to support same.  

The Respondent would request that given the circumstances of this specific case, that the Adjudication Officer would deem it sufficient and appropriate to issue a decision in accordance with Section 27(1)(a), which would ‘direct that the employer comply with paragraph (a) of section 21 (1)’’.

This request is supported in acknowledgement that the Respondent has a robust framework in place that deals with such request; the Complainant’s request was never considered under the framework; or given to the relevant personnel to consider such requests; and to afford to opportunity for the Complainant to have his request appropriately considered under the Respondent’s framework which complies with the Code of Practice.

In conclusion, the Respondent respectfully requests the Adjudication Officer uphold their position and issue a decision in accordance with Section 27(1)(a), which would ‘direct that the employer comply with paragraph (a) of section 21 (1)’.

CA-00076606-001

The Relevant 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 section 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 of the Act sets out the obligation on the employer to consider a request for remote working under section 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 – [emphasis added] 

(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.

Section 27 of the Act provides:

(1) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Act of 2015, or a decision of the Labour Court under section 44 of that Act on appeal from the first-mentioned decision in relation to a dispute between an employee and his or her employer relating to the fulfilment by the employer of his or her obligations under section 21 (1) may—

(a) direct that the employer comply with paragraph (a) of section 21 (1),

(b) direct that the employer comply with any of the requirements of paragraph (b) of section 21 (1) as if the reference in that subsection to the date that is 4 weeks after the receipt of the employee’s request under section 20 was a reference to such date as may be specified in the direction,

(c) award compensation in favour of the employee concerned to be paid by the employer concerned,

or

 (d) specify both a direction referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), or both, and an award referred to in paragraph (c). …

 (5) An award of compensation referred to in subsections (1)(c), (2), (3)(c) or (4) shall be of such amount as the adjudication officer or the Labour Court, as the case may be, considers just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances but shall not exceed 4 weeks’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment calculated in such manner as may be prescribed.

The Relevant Facts

it is not in dispute there was a failure on the Respondent’s part to reply within four weeks of the Complainant’s request. 

It was explained to the parties at hearing that the failure to reply is the only matter to be considered in this case. 

I find that the Respondent contravened section 21(1)(b) by failing to respond to the Complainant’s request.

For the reasons set out above I find this complaint to be well-founded. 

CA-00076606-001

I decide this complaint is well-founded.  I direct that the Respondent comply with paragraph (a) of section 21(1). 

In the circumstances I decide it is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances to make an award of compensation in the amount of €1,000.00 for contravention of a statutory right.    

For the avoidance of doubt, this amount is not in the nature of remuneration and should not be treated as such for the purposes of tax or other deductions.