Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

An Employer

Representatives

Garda Representative Association

Employee Relations Manager

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00004832

29/07/2025

The Worker commenced work in 1999 with the Employer. Written submission were received and presented by the Worker’s Representative Body.

The Employer was represented by Employee Relations and provided written submissions in advance of the hearing.

The Worker was diagnosed with a long term illness.

It was her dispute to be investigated her pattern of work was not in compliance with the advice of her medical attendants and the Employer’s CMO.

She sought to amend her pattern of remote working from one day to two days a week.

It was her submission her duties were desk based. In response to the reasons for refusal, the Worker submitted worked as part of a team but they were not located in the same office as her, she did not have any issues regarding her work nor did she engage with them face to face on a daily or requiring in person supervision and would continue to work her 8 hours therefore no impact on resources.

She outlined the internal procedures she had exhausted.

The Employer did not dispute the illness.

It was submitted that arrangement was in place to allow the Worker work remotely one day a week.

It was a matter for her line manager to assess whether she could extend this arrangement to two days a week and this was denied.

The reason submitted for the refusal was due to shortage of resources, supervision, value in face to face interaction and ultimately, management want to see workers in the office.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

The Worker’s submissions made reference to the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 (the “Acts”) and associated case law. However, this is an industrial relations dispute, and the stringent legal norms applied to determining “reasonable accommodation” under the Acts do not apply in this instance. Similarly, this is not a dispute relating to the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023. This matter concerns a very specific set of circumstances relating to the particular duties undertaken by the Worker.

Nonetheless, I am not satisfied that the Worker has been reasonably accommodated in this dispute. The Employer’s reasoning for refusal is unreasonable. No specific justification has been provided as to why this individual who is already permitted to work remotely one day per week, cannot have this arrangement extended to two days per week, particularly as she continues to attend the workplace on her remaining working days and there is no identified issues with her performance under the current pattern.

It is further noted that the Worker’s situation remains under medical review, which supports her request.