There is no remote work procedure – it will not be easy with those who work improperly
The Supreme Court of Lithuania (Supreme Court) recently examined a case where a former employee sued the employer who fired her due to a gross violation of her work duties. The employee worked remotely most of the time, sometimes even for a whole week, but the company did not have clear rules for remote work.
That is, employees were not informed in which cases it is possible or not to work from home, when a request to work remotely is (not) satisfied, there were no rules, how long employees have to answer calls, etc. Employees recorded the choice to work remotely in the app, but, in the absence of a clear rule, sometimes they did it at the beginning of the working day, sometimes the day before.
The employer claimed that while working remotely, the employee did not join the mandatory weekly remote meetings, and performed the tasks assigned to her poorly. As the employees continued to submit applications for remote work, the employer did not consider them, but invited the employee to come to the physical workplace several times and discuss the work and the situation. However, the employee did not come. While she continued to work remotely, the employer assessed the absence of work as a gross violation of work duties and dismissed the employee on this basis.
However, the LAT stated that the employer did not inform the employee that his absences were regarded as absenteeism, and did not warn the employees that they were at risk of being fired for a gross violation of work duties. In addition, the employer in the aforementioned case did not conduct a detailed investigation into the violation of the employee’s work duties. Therefore, the LAT decided that, in the absence of rules and active actions by the employer, there is no basis for the conclusion that the employee committed a gross violation of her work duties, or that this could have led to her dismissal.
LAT was favorable to the employees and maximally strict to the employer, therefore it recognized the dismissal of the employee from the company as illegal.
The right to remote work is not absolute
The Labor Code specifies what is considered remote work. This is a regular way of performing work remotely, coordinated with the employer, at a place agreed upon by the parties to the employment contract, using information and electronic communication technologies. Working remotely is done at the request of the employee or by agreement of the parties.
The employer must comply with the employee’s request to work remotely if it is requested by: a pregnant or recently given birth or breastfeeding employee, an employee raising a child under 8 years old, an employee raising a child under 14 years old or a disabled child under 18 years old.
Also, the employer must satisfy the employee’s request to work remotely if, according to the conclusion of the health care institution, the employee has submitted a request based on the state of health, disability or the need to nurse or look after a family member or a person living with the employee.
It is true that lawyer I. Mažeikaitė notes that the employer may not satisfy even the above-mentioned requests of the employees, if he proves that due to the production necessity or peculiarities of the work organization, the remote work of the employees would cause excessive costs.
Remote work can be successfully controlled
After establishing the employer’s duty to clearly regulate the procedure and foresee the peculiarities when organizing work remotely in the aforementioned LAT case, employers should also pay attention to several other aspects noted in the LAT. So what must the employer tell the employee before releasing the employee to work remotely?
First of all, the employer must determine in writing the requirements for the employee’s remote workplace, provide work tools and establish the rules for their use. If, while working remotely, the employee incurs additional costs related to his work, the purchase, installation and use of work tools, the parties must agree on their compensation. It is important to indicate the responsible person to whom the employee will have to account for the work performed while working remotely (submitting reports, participating in discussions, etc.).
It is also necessary to determine in detail the forms and rules of communication with a remote worker. For example, how much time does the employee have to answer a missed call or received letter, does the employee have to attend organization meetings, how long does he have to arrive at the company’s office.
Employers often encounter cases of employee abuse – when employees are supposed to work remotely, but actually do other things that have nothing to do with their work or, for example, start work late or leave it early. Therefore, the employer may have to control the employee so that he does not abuse remote work.
I want to emphasize that when controlling an employee, the employer should not violate the individual’s privacy. What are the possible solutions to avoid violation of personal data protection requirements? For example, in order to check whether the employee performs the functions assigned to him on time, the employer could record the start and end of the employee’s work as login to certain systems, or record the active and passive login time of the employee. Of course, the employer has the right to ask the employee to submit a work report and thus check the employee’s work while working remotely.
The most important message of the LAT is this – the lack of clear regulation of remote work severely limits the employer’s right to demand careful and responsible behavior from the employee and achievable work results. The LAT ruling draws a clear conclusion – without an accurate remote work procedure in the organization, there will be no order in all processes.
window.fbAsyncInit = function() {
FB.init({
appId: ‘117218911630016’,
version: ‘v2.10’,
status: true,
cookie: false,
xfbml: true
});
};
(function(d, s, id) {
var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];
if (d.getElementById(id)) {
return;
}
js = d.createElement(s);
js.id = id;
js.src = “https://connect.facebook.net/lt_LT/sdk.js”;
fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);
}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));
#company #fired #employee #worked #remotely #show #results #ended #court #lawyers #advise #avoid #Business
**Interview with Legal Expert Indrė Mažeikaitė on Remote Work Regulations in Lithuania**
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us, Indrė. The recent decision by the Supreme Court of Lithuania seems to highlight significant issues regarding remote work procedures in firms. Can you summarize the key takeaways from this case?
**Indrė Mažeikaitė:** Absolutely. The case involved a former employee who was dismissed for what the employer deemed a gross violation of work duties while working remotely. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employee, emphasizing that the absence of clear remote work regulations from the employer meant the dismissal was unjust. It highlighted that without proper guidelines and communication regarding remote work, employers could not hold employees accountable for alleged violations.
**Interviewer:** What specific shortcomings did the court identify in the employer’s handling of remote work?
**Indrė Mažeikaitė:** The court noted several issues. Firstly, the employer had not established rules about when remote work was permissible and did not communicate potential consequences for not participating in weekly meetings or failing to meet job expectations. Without these guidelines, the court determined that the employer could not classify the employee’s conduct as a gross violation.
**Interviewer:** With this ruling in mind, what steps should employers take to avoid similar legal pitfalls?
**Indrė Mažeikaitė:** Employers must develop clear, written procedures for remote work. This includes outlining the requirements for remote working conditions, defining communication protocols, and establishing accountabilities—such as response times for missed calls and attendance at meetings. Moreover, they should provide necessary work tools and agree on compensating any additional expenses incurred by employees while working remotely.
**Interviewer:** It sounds like communication is key. Are there any specific communication rules you would recommend?
**Indrė Mažeikaitė:** Definitely. Communication rules should specify how quickly employees need to respond to communications, whether they are required to join meetings, and how often check-ins or reports are expected. Employers need to set realistic expectations while also fostering an environment of accountability to prevent potential abuse of remote work.
**Interviewer:** Lastly, do you believe this ruling could lead to changes in how remote work is viewed legally in Lithuania?
**Indrė Mažeikaitė:** Yes, I believe this case will serve as a precedent. It emphasizes that the right to work remotely must be clearly defined and that both parties—the employer and employee—need to understand their rights and responsibilities. As remote work becomes more prevalent, we can expect companies to create more structured policies to avoid similar disputes in the future.
**Interviewer:** Thank you, Indrė, for these insights. Your expertise sheds light on an evolving aspect of labor law that is increasingly important in today’s workplace.
**Indrė Mažeikaitė:** Thank you for having me! It’s essential to keep this conversation going as we adapt to new work paradigms.
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us, Indrė. The recent decision by the Supreme Court of Lithuania seems to highlight significant issues regarding remote work procedures in firms. Can you summarize the key takeaways from this case?
**Indrė Mažeikaitė:** Absolutely. The case involved a former employee who was dismissed for what the employer deemed a gross violation of work duties while working remotely. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employee, emphasizing that the absence of clear remote work regulations from the employer meant the dismissal was unjust. It highlighted that without proper guidelines and communication regarding remote work, employers could not hold employees accountable for alleged violations.
**Interviewer:** What specific shortcomings did the court identify in the employer’s handling of remote work?
**Indrė Mažeikaitė:** The court noted several issues. Firstly, the employer had not established rules about when remote work was permissible and did not communicate potential consequences for not participating in weekly meetings or failing to meet job expectations. Without these guidelines, the court determined that the employer could not classify the employee’s conduct as a gross violation.
**Interviewer:** With this ruling in mind, what steps should employers take to avoid similar legal pitfalls?
**Indrė Mažeikaitė:** Employers must develop clear, written procedures for remote work. This includes outlining the requirements for remote working conditions, defining communication protocols, and establishing accountabilities—such as response times for missed calls and attendance at meetings. Moreover, they should provide necessary work tools and agree on compensating any additional expenses incurred by employees while working remotely.
**Interviewer:** What recommendations would you offer to companies aiming to track employee performance without infringing on privacy rights?
**Indrė Mažeikaitė:** It’s essential for employers to find a balance between monitoring performance and respecting employee privacy. They could implement systems that track login times and active working hours without intrusive surveillance. Additionally, encouraging regular reporting and open communication can help foster accountability while maintaining trust in the employer-employee relationship.
**Interviewer:** Thank you, Indrė, for your valuable insights. It seems that clarity and communication are essential for fostering a productive remote work environment.
**Indrė Mažeikaitė:** Thank you for having me. It’s crucial that both employers and employees understand their rights and responsibilities in remote work scenarios to create a harmonious and efficient working relationship.
