Return to office

[johnmck]

My wife's company have asked her to return to the office.
She has been working from home for 2 years. It is a job that doesn't require her to be in an office and she's actually more productive from home.
The company had a meeting a couple of months ago in which they said they were happy with anybody remote working and they could continue to do so.

Now they've changed their minds and given her an ultimatum. Return or quit. We now live in a different part of Ireland because of their decision to allow remote working. We have no intention of ever moving back to Dublin.

They about 30 staff with 20 people working remotely and only space in their new offices for 10!
Can they do this?
What if they are not asking all people to return?

 

[Sarenco]

Can they do this?

In a nutshell, yes they can.

The Government has published draft legislation which will give employees a right to request to work remotely. But, even if enacted, an employer will have various grounds upon which they can decline such a request.

I suspect this is an increasingly common scenario. A lot of employers that I’m familiar with have basically issued “back to the office” directives in recent weeks.

 

[PaddyBloggit]

Return or quit

It could also be a ploy to reduce staff numbers.

 

[dubdub123]

Did she get an updated employment contract to reflect remote working?

 

[Clamball]

Yes they can do it, but they are a bit short-sited. Your wife should start looking for other remote positions, companies are looking for staff all over.

I think they are short sited because they have not left the pandemic changes settle yet and companies are still defining their needs and requirements.

It may be they leave the people who want to stay remote go but not be able to replace them with in office people, as the no 1 question being asked by applicants is what is your remote working policy. So they may end up going with a remote replacement and loose all the skills you wife has.

She can also speak to her line manager and determine what they need her in the office for specifically, team meetings?, collaborative work, brain-storming? They must be able to articulate the benefit of having her in person.

 

[Steven Barrett]

Story in the Financial Times

There was the flummoxed investor who had told junior staff they should be in the office when clients visited, only to have those staff say: thanks for the feedback but I would rather keep working from home.

A consultant told me of a younger colleague who refused to travel abroad to client meetings any more, insisting they could be done online. And a financial adviser who fumed about young people logging in to important internal meetings where they kept their cameras off and said nothing.

Employers have to seek that balance. What happened the OP is wrong for an employer to say they have a WFH policy and then change their mind. They are entitled to do so though.

I certainly think that younger people should be in the office. They will learn more by being around more senior people and have better career prospects by being noticed. You can be the best worker in the world, but if you are busily working at home, you aren't coming to the attention of your bosses as often, if at all. Plus there is the social element of work as well.

 

[Purple]

I certainly think that younger people should be in the office. They will learn more by being around more senior people and have better career prospects by being noticed. You can be the best worker in the world, but if you are busily working at home, you aren't coming to the attention of your bosses as often, if at all.

Everybody talks about having a career nowadays but many people actually just want a job. If you structure your life around kids, hobbies, looking after elderly parents etc then the chances are you have a job, not a career, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Plus there is the social element of work as well.

I think that's really important for lots of work related and personal wellbeing reasons.

 

[Peanuts20]

Does her employers have a remote work policy? Does her contract of employment state where her place of work is and was anything documented at the time/emails confirming she can work from home etc. Is she the only one being asked to do this?

 

[Steven Barrett]

Everybody talks about having a career nowadays but many people actually just want a job. If you structure your life around kids, hobbies, looking after elderly parents etc then the chances are you have a job, not a career, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I think that's really important for lots of work related and personal wellbeing reasons.

No, there is nothing wrong with just having a job. Younger people obviously start at the bottom and usually want to progress and earn more money. There then comes a time for a lot of people where the money is enough to have a family, buy a home etc and people are content. Others push on to progress to hirer roles.

But if someone came to me and told me that they want to structure their lives around their kids, hobbies, elderly parents and that is why they wanted to work from home all the time, I would presume they want to do that on the time I was paying them to work.

That is not to say you cannot be flexible and allow people time off to do these things, but the employee would need to be honest.

 

[DublinHead54]

I certainly think that younger people should be in the office. They will learn more by being around more senior people and have better career prospects by being noticed. You can be the best worker in the world, but if you are busily working at home, you aren't coming to the attention of your bosses as often, if at all. Plus there is the social element of work as well.

Career prospects and promotion should not be based on 'being seen by your boss' in 2022. An individual should have a clear set of objectives defining what they are expected to achieve, a transparent promotion guidelines for expectations at the next level, and managers that support this. That is why it shouldn't really matter if they work from home or work in an office.

I work for a fully remote company after working in Financial services for years and through the pandemic. I have much clearer career prospects in my remote role than I did whilst working in an office.

I do agree that it is important to have a social connection and connect in person in teams. However, my last employer used the rational of 'knowledge transfer' when in the office which was just a lazy excuse.

 

[Purple]

Career prospects and promotion should not be based on 'being seen by your boss' in 2022. An individual should have a clear set of objectives defining what they are expected to achieve, a transparent promotion guidelines for expectations at the next level, and managers that support this. That is why it shouldn't really matter if they work from home or work in an office.

I work for a fully remote company after working in Financial services for years and through the pandemic. I have much clearer career prospects in my remote role than I did whilst working in an office.

I do agree that it is important to have a social connection and connect in person in teams. However, my last employer used the rational of 'knowledge transfer' when in the office which was just a lazy excuse.

It's worth remembering that most people work in the SME sector where "a clear set of objectives defining what they are expected to achieve, a transparent promotion guidelines for expectations at the next level, and managers that support this" just doesn't exist. If any of us is fortunate enough to have a job where this is an expectation then we should be thankful for our good fortune.

 

[Peanuts20]

I work fully remote, my boss is in Spain, his boss in Germany and her boss is in the US. My team are all over the world, from India to the Uk and Ireland and Poland Being in the office is good from a training perspective and for some companies, there is a need to handle physical goods but for a lot of people, there is no need to be. In some cases, management are so stuck in the dark ages that they think people have to work 9-5 and will only work if they are looking over their shoulder.

Work has changed for a lot of people, from clocking in 9-5 to outcome based

 

[Leo]

In some cases, management are so stuck in the dark ages that they think people have to work 9-5 and will only work if they are looking over their shoulder.

And how much of that is down to weak management who don't understand their space, and just want their staff (the real SMEs) always on hand in case their boss asks a tough question!

 

[odyssey06]

In a nutshell, yes they can.

The Government has published draft legislation which will give employees a right to request to work remotely. But, even if enacted, an employer will have various grounds upon which they can decline such a request.

I suspect this is an increasingly common scenario. A lot of employers that I’m familiar with have basically issued “back to the office” directives in recent weeks.

But if they are only asking specific staff to return - so won't they then have to justify why they are asking her specifically to return?

OP can you clarify are they asking all the people in your wife's role to return?

 

[Sarenco]

But if they are only asking specific staff to return - so won't they then have to justify why they are asking her specifically to return?

No, there's no requirement at the moment for an employer to justify where a particular employee is required to work.

 

[odyssey06]

No, there's no requirement at the moment for an employer to justify where a particular employee is required to work.

"even if enacted, an employer will have various grounds upon which they can decline such a request."

So these grounds basically allow the employer to do what they want? Demand an employee return to work even if they allow another employee in same role to work from home? Let's assume both employees have been in the company with same service duration.
Implicitly therefore the role can be done remotely.

 

[Purple]

"even if enacted, an employer will have various grounds upon which they can decline such a request."

So these grounds basically allow the employer to do what they want? Demand an employee return to work even if they allow another employee in same role to work from home? Let's assume both employees have been in the company with same service duration.
Implicitly therefore the role can be done remotely.

It would be odd if the location they worked at was up the employee.
The employee is free to choose who they work for. The location is part of that decision.

 

[Sarenco]

So these grounds basically allow the employer to do what they want?

The current draft legislation provides that an employer can decline a request to work remotely on any of the following grounds:

(a) The Nature of the work not allowing for the work to be done remotely;
(b) Cannot reorganise work among existing staff;
(c) Potential Negative impact on quality of business product or service;
(d) Potential Negative impact on performance of employee or other employees;
(e) Burden of Additional Costs, taking into account the financial and other costs entailed and the scale and financial resources of the employer’s business;
(f) Concerns for the protection of business confidentiality or intellectual property;
(g) Concerns for the suitability of the proposed workspace on health and safety grounds;
(h) Concerns for the suitability of the proposed workspace on data protection grounds;
(i) Concerns for the internet connectivity of the proposed remote working location;
(j) Concerns for the commute between the proposed remote working location and employer’s on-site location;
(k) The proposed remote working arrangement conflicts with the provisions of an applicable collective agreement;
(l) Planned structural changes would render any of (a) to (k) applicable; or
(m) Employee is the subject of ongoing or recently concluded formal disciplinary process.

 

[odyssey06]

It would be odd if the location they worked at was up the employee.
The employee is free to choose who they work for. The location is part of that decision.

What's the point of the legislation then?

And also, are there not considerations re: application of company policy differently to employees of same service and how that could be viewed by the WRC.

 

[odyssey06]

The current draft legislation provides that an employer can decline a request to work remotely on any of the following grounds:

(a) The Nature of the work not allowing for the work to be done remotely;
(b) Cannot reorganise work among existing staff;
(c) Potential Negative impact on quality of business product or service;
(d) Potential Negative impact on performance of employee or other employees;
(e) Burden of Additional Costs, taking into account the financial and other costs entailed and the scale and financial resources of the employer’s business;
(f) Concerns for the protection of business confidentiality or intellectual property;
(g) Concerns for the suitability of the proposed workspace on health and safety grounds;
(h) Concerns for the suitability of the proposed workspace on data protection grounds;
(i) Concerns for the internet connectivity of the proposed remote working location;
(j) Concerns for the commute between the proposed remote working location and employer’s on-site location;
(k) The proposed remote working arrangement conflicts with the provisions of an applicable collective agreement;
(l) Planned structural changes would render any of (a) to (k) applicable; or
(m) Employee is the subject of ongoing or recently concluded formal disciplinary process.

So the OP's wife should be asking for which of these it was refused against. If other staff in same role can work remotely that would make questionable a decline under a-f, k, l, m. It would only be g-j.