Legislation in employers’ favour but ‘claims of death of remote work are premature’

Contrary to the growing narrative that remote work is on the decline, employment law expert Barry Crushell argues that it’s here to stay—albeit in a more nuanced form. While current laws don’t guarantee a legal right to work from home, Crushell emphasizes that the shift toward remote work is far from over, even as employers increasingly push for office returns.

Crushell, who operates a Dublin-based employment law practice, points out that existing work-life balance laws allow employees to request remote work but don’t obligate employers to approve it. “Many employees who’ve built their lives around working remotely are now facing the harsh reality of companies reversing their policies,” he explains. “They’re left questioning what happens if they resist returning to the office.”

“There is a legal right to request remote work, but very few circumstances under which an employer would be compelled to grant it. It’s the exception, not the rule.”

He cautions that employees who refuse to return to the office may face disciplinary measures or even job loss. However, exceptions exist, particularly for individuals with disabilities or medical conditions where working remotely is a reasonable accommodation.

Workplace Relations Commission Cases

Crushell observes that most disputes brought before the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) under this legislation tend to favor employers. “Many organizations are rolling back their remote work policies, with some insisting on full-time office attendance,” he notes.

He also mentions that employees who are unhappy with these changes frequently enough choose to switch jobs rather than take legal action. “For those considering filing a claim with the WRC, I often advise that success is unlikely unless there’s a specific contractual agreement or other unique factors at play,” he adds.

“The takeaway is that even though remote work issues are appearing in employment litigation, I rarely recommend clients bring complaints under the work-life balance legislation.”

Instead, Crushell focuses on other legal avenues that offer more robust solutions. “In most cases, we’re not depending on the work-life balance legislation. We’re exploring other channels where compensation is more attainable,” he concludes.

or positive outcomes are more achievable.”

A “Toothless Tiger” Legislation?

crushell describes the current legislation ⁤as a “toothless tiger,” designed to appease both employees and employers without providing real guarantees.”Employees⁢ can request remote work, but ‍employers aren’t obligated to approve it. ⁣This ‍leaves many in a tough spot,” he says.

“For⁣ now, the legislation is a toothless tiger.”

He anticipates that trade unions and employee representatives may push for legislative reforms to⁣ ensure employers can’t unreasonably⁢ deny remote work requests, especially when productivity isn’t affected. “Right now, the ⁢law doesn’t offer⁤ much protection,”⁤ he adds.

The Future of Remote Work

Despite the challenges, crushell believes remote work will continue to evolve⁣ rather than disappear.​ “Claims of ‌the ‘death ⁢of remote work’ are premature,” he asserts. “we’re in the early stages‌ of redefining how we work‍ post-pandemic.”

“I don’t think we’ll ever see a return ⁤to full-time work from the office.”

He predicts a hybrid model will dominate,blending remote and in-office⁤ work to ⁤meet the ​needs of both employees and employers. ​”The pandemic forced us to rethink work adaptability, and that shift isn’t going away.It’s just adapting to new ⁤realities.”

As businesses and employees navigate this evolving landscape, the‌ debate⁣ over remote work’s future remains ⁤unresolved. ⁣For now, the onus is on policymakers to bridge the gap ⁤between​ employee expectations and employer demands, ensuring a fair⁤ and productive ‌work surroundings for all.