CC, HR and Legal shared their Insights into Workplace Investigations on a Live LinkedIn webinar in June. Here is a recording so you can listen back to the practical insights and experiences our team shared. It includes perspectives on:
interviewing witnesses
assessing evidence
documenting the outcome in a written report.
You can follow our LinkedIn page if you would like to attend one of our upcoming webinars or get other updates.
Listen to the partners of CC Solicitors Colleen Cleary, Regan O’Driscoll and Bernadette Daly discuss Reinstatement and Re-engagement, the lesser-known remedies for unfair dismissal, both of which return dismissed employees to the workplace.
The key areas we cover include:
The features of reinstatement and re-engagement
Recent Irish caselaw, including the WRC’s Contemporary Music Centre and Eir Business decisions, and the High Court’s Gaelscoil Moshíológ decision
Litigation-proofing and key strategic takeaways for claimants, respondents and practitioners,
The Unfair Dismissals Acts and Employment Equality Acts provide for three different remedies but, for the most part, everybody concentrates on only one: compensation. There are good reasons for that, as it is the most common and the least problematic remedy that can be awarded under that legislation. From a financial perspective, it returns the employee to the position they would have been in had they not been dismissed, in that it refunds to them their loss of income. In that context, and particularly with regard to the Unfair Dismissals Acts, the questions that are asked are measurable/quantifiable: what losses has the employee suffered in terms of actual income?; have they returned to work?; have they attempted and/or been in a position to mitigate their losses, etc?
Even in respect of the Employment Equality Acts, where compensation is not limited to actual loss, these questions are asked.
In providing for this remedy, both sets of Acts envisage the parties all moving on from any involvement with one another and there are obvious practical reasons why that can be a good outcome, for example (as is often the case) where the parties have lost all trust or confidence in one another.
The other two remedies are of no less importance, notwithstanding that they are less common. The Acts also envisage situations where the parties should actually be able to work together again and/or where the employer has acted so irrationally that the employee should (i) not be in any way prejudiced by it, ie that they should be returned to the position they were in or (ii) should only be prejudiced to the extent that they lose some service but otherwise should be reemployed.
From time to time, these alternative remedies, respectively reinstatement and reengagement, are awarded or at least very seriously considered by the Workplace Relations Commission/Labour Court. Arising from their rarity, the practical difficulties implicit in their implementation, and what are usually fairly interesting facts leading to their consideration/imposition, they often attract media attention. Recently, some cases involving reinstatement and/or reengagement have attracted such attention and one at least has raised some fairly novel points.
In Thomas Doolin v Eir Business Eircom Limited ADJ-00045261, the complainant brought a discrimination complaint to the WRC under the Employment Equality Acts, arising from his termination by reason of retirement. The WRC found that the decision of the employer to refuse to allow the complainant to work beyond 65 was not objectively justified and ordered reinstatement of the complainant to his previous job effective from the imposed retirement date. The reinstatement order meant the complainant was entitled to be paid his salary for the time he was out of work between termination on 1 July 2023 and reinstatement on 30 November 2023. That is the key factor of reinstatement employers must bear in mind – it is not only that they must reemploy the terminated employee, but must also pay backpay as though the termination never took place. It can be a bitter pill to swallow.
By contrast, reengagement does not necessarily require backpay from the date of termination, or even a return specifically to the same role. However, it does require the employer to put the dismissed employee back on payroll on an ongoing basis so, either way, it requires the employer to make significant decisions.
In Linda O’Shea Farren v Contemporary Music Centre CLG ADJ-00044000, the complaint fought for reinstatement but it was not ultimately awarded, despite careful consideration by the WRC. The respondent resisted reinstatement on the basis that relations between the complainant and existing employees were not good; the size of the respondent organisation did not facilitate it; and the respondent’s restructuring after the complainant’s dismissal meant that the complainant’s position no longer exists. Ultimately, the WRC made their decision to refuse reinstatement on the basis of “the attitude of the parties towards each other”, ie the adjudication officer read the room and saw that the parties simply could not work together going forward and/or “that reinstatement is neither in the interests of the complainant or appropriate”.
The WRC noted that the complainant did not seek re-engagement with the respondent in an alternative position.
In the most notable case, An Bord Banistiochda Gaelscoil Moshiolog v The Labour Court [2023] IEHC 497, the High Court affirmed full reinstatement of an employee who had been dismissed in November 2015. This followed a decision to reengage him in 2018 and an even more favourable decision of the Labour Court in 2022. This case is particular to its facts to an extent, in circumstances where at least some of the delays were caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, and so it is rare that an employer will be obliged to pay backpay to this level, but it is a salutary lesson for employers. Reinstatement and/or reengagement can happen and so can delays. No employer is immune from statutory remedies.
Most employers will understandably believe that an employee in this position will not seek to be reinstated/reengaged, that they will see the writing on the wall in terms of the relationship between the parties. That is usually the case but, as the above caselaw shows, not always. Sometimes an employee is going to look to get back in, whether because they genuinely wish to return to work or because they consider that will give them a strategic edge in settlement negotiations. It is important for employers to remember that the WRC has full discretion to make that award.
Another recent and high-profile example of an employee seeking to be restored to their position, of which Star Wars fans in particular will have taken note, is the Gina Carano case against Disney. Carano, whose litigation is being funded by Elon Musk, is seeking to return to the cast of the tv show, The Mandalorian. That litigation may go on for some years, during which the show itself may come to an end, but watch this space…
In this article and our accompanying podcast, we consider the various conundrums that can arise in the context of ongoing and live internal workplace investigations. For example, we consider the following:
Who do you appoint as the investigator?
Do you draw up specific written terms of reference for each investigation?
What happens if there are parallel or ongoing criminal proceedings?
How do you interview witnesses?
How do you evaluate the evidence that you have collated for the purposes of a written report?
How an organisation responds to an internal complaint is crucial. Therefore, it is imperative that you chose your investigator with care. The person you appoint to conduct the workplace investigation, will be responsible for producing a core document which the organisation must be prepared to rely on. It is therefore very important that the investigator you appoint has the relevant skills and is independent. What do we mean by relevant skills? The person must be robust, they must not be biased, they must have the ability to interview witnesses, evaluate the evidence they have collated and produce a coherent written report.
The report will lay a strong foundation for what action the organisation may decide to take after completion of the report. It is important to bear in mind that the report may be subject to external scrutiny at a later date by a third-party in the context of legal proceedings. The organisation should be able to stand over the written report with confidence. Therefore, choose your investigator with care and strongly consider whether you need to appoint an independent external investigator with sufficient experience to undertake the investigation.
Terms Of Reference
This is the question that we are often asked by clients, that if they already have a specific policy and procedure, do they need additional terms of reference? Drafting specific terms of reference is always a good idea. This is particularly so, where the complaint is multifaceted. The terms of reference will enable the proposed investigator to identify exactly what it is they are being asked to investigate. This will avoid the investigation going off track at a later date. It will form the touchstone for the investigator and for the organisation so that all parties are clear as to what it is the investigator is being asked to investigate. It is important to identify whether the process is simply fact finding, is the investigator being asked to make actual findings or is it the case the investigator is being asked to establish whether there is a “case to answer” or not. Other day-to-day housekeeping issues can also be addressed in the terms of reference, such as how meetings will be held, whether Zoom will be used and whether minutes or notes of meetings will be kept. Having terms of reference creates order and ensures that the investigator does not go off track, because they will always have to refer back to the terms of reference as to exactly what they are being asked to investigate.
Criminal Proceedings
Another issue that comes up more often than you think is where there are parallel criminal proceedings ongoing at the same time as an internal workplace investigation. The recent decision of Mulcahy J in Electricity Supply Board v Sharkey [2024] IEHC 65 considered whether an employee’s right to silence can be relied on in response to an employer’s request for information. In brief, allegations had been made that certain ESB employees had been demanding cash for the completion of works. The employee refused to respond to the employer’s investigation in light of a separate ongoing criminal investigation. However, without commencing any disciplinary proceedings, ESB initiated proceedings seeking a declaration that the refusal to answer questions amounted to a repudiation of the contract of employment, such that the employee could be treated as having been summarily dismissed. The declarations sought by ESB were not allowed by the Court. An employer needs to be able to assess the competing interests of the right to silence and the importance of the employer being able to deal with the matter in advance of the Garda investigation. The outcome appears to support the proposition that there is no general right to silence in an employment context and employees are not entitled in disciplinary proceedings to simply say to their employers “prove your case”. What we take from this is that there is no hard and fast rule as to how employers respond to the fact that court proceedings are ongoing in relation to a similar issue. It would be very disruptive for an employer to have to wait until criminal or civil proceedings are processed which can take, in certain circumstances, years. Our strong advice is to take advice on each individual situation and to consider whether you need to amend your contract of employment to include a provision that the employee is obliged to put their employer on notice if such investigations or proceedings are being initiated against them.
Questioning Witnesses
Investigators need to be skilled in how to interview a witness. A witness should not be interrogated, they should be made to feel comfortable so that they are able to have an open and frank discussion. Investigators should refrain from making any comments, which could be perceived by the witness as an indication that the investigator has already made a determination on the facts. Investigators should have the requisite skill to be able to question a witness and have follow up questions as to what evidence the witness may have that supports their version of events. Preparation should be undertaken, to identify what question you may wish to ask of the witness. It is important to listen to the response from the witness. Sometimes throwaway remarks can reveal quite a lot, and investigators should be prepared to follow up on comments that may open up a very useful line of enquiry.
Evaluation of Evidence
Once all the evidence is collated it can be quite a daunting task for an investigator to be able to assess that evidence to include witness statements and any supporting documentation or contemporaneous notes. An investigator has to be able to demonstrate that they have analysed the evidence and documented a fair and reasoned determination. There are specific skills and credibility factors that can be applied to the evidence to assist an investigator to make a reasoned decision. These are often called credibility factors and can include factors such as whether there is specific corroboration, such as contemporaneous notes or minutes or emails, is there evidence of consistent or inconsistent statements, how plausible are the explanations, is there any indication of bias, or a motive to lie, what is their demeanour like, how do they respond to questions, did the witness observe any relevant interaction, etc. This will be extremely helpful in the context of being able to explain to both parties why a decision has been made if the decision is in fact well-reasoned and documented in a detailed report.
If you require any assistance in conducting an internal workplace investigation and/or if you require an independent workplace investigator, please do not hesitate to contact one of the team at www.ccsolicitors.ie. The team are all experienced HR legal advisors and workplace investigations as well as accredited investigators with the U.S. based Association of Workplace Investigations (AWI).
Listen to the partners of CC Solicitors – Colleen Cleary, Regan O’Driscoll and Bernadette Daly discuss the various conundrums that can arise in the context of ongoing and live internal workplace investigations. The partners consider and discuss the following:
Who do you appoint as the investigator?
Do you draw up specific written terms of reference for each investigation?
What happens if there are parallel or ongoing criminal proceedings?
How do you interview witnesses?
How do you evaluate the evidence that you have collated for the purposes of a written report?
The WRC have published the long-awaited Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Right to Request Flexible Working and the Right to Request Remote Working (the “Code”). The Code was required in order to implement the right to request flexible and remote working arrangements as set out in the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 (the “Act”). The Code provides practical guidance for both employers and employees as to how to make, consider and handle requests for flexible and remote working arrangements.
We previously provided an outline of the new rights to request flexible and remote working arrangements in our article on Work Life Balance which can be found here. The publication of the Code means that all employees now have a right to request remote working arrangements. Parents and carers of persons in need of significant care or support for a serious medical reason now also have a right to request flexible working arrangements.
Clarity on Types of Flexible Working Arrangements:
The Act defines a flexible working arrangement as a “working arrangement where an employee’s working hours or patterns are adjusted, including through the use of remote working arrangements, flexible working schedules or reduced working hours”. The Code expands on this definition to include part-time work, term-time work, job sharing, flexitime, compressed working hours and remote working as types of flexible working arrangements.
Reasons to Request a Remote Working Arrangement:
The Code provides a number of examples of reasons for requesting a remote working arrangement which includes, but is not limited to the following:
Reducing commutes and carbon footprint
Optimizing quality of life outside normal working hours
Personal or domestic circumstances
Neurodiversity or special medical needs or circumstances which could favour a quiet working environment or facilities not always available in the office.
Key takeaways from the Code of Practice:
6 months continuous service required before a flexible or remote working arrangement can commence.
Requests must be made in writing, signed by the employee and submitted to the employer at least 8 weeks in advance of the proposed start date.
Employers are generally required to respond to requests as soon as is reasonably practicable, but no later than four weeks from receipt.
In considering a flexible working request, employers should take into account their own needs, the employee’s needs, and the guidance set out in the Code.
The Code sets out considerations to be taken into account by employers when considering a remote working request including: the type of work done by the employee, whether the role requires face-to-face engagement with clients, the employee’s IT skills and the level of supervision required by the employee.
Employers and employees can agree to make an amendment to or to terminate a flexible or remote arrangement after it has been agreed. The Code sets out factors which should be taken into account when making such a decision, including where the arrangement is having a substantial adverse effect on the operation of the business, profession, or occupation or where the employer has reasonable grounds to believe the arrangement is being abused by the employee.
WRC:
Employees who consider their employer is in breach of their obligations in considering their flexible or remote working request, may refer the matter to the WRC. However, it is important to note that the WRC can only assess the process that was followed by an employer in reaching its decision on the employee’s flexible or remote working request. The WRC cannot assess the merits of any decision made by an employer in relation to the request.
The WRC have the power to:
Direct an employer to comply with specific sections of the Act and/or
Make an award of up to four weeks’ remuneration as compensation for a breach of the employer’s obligations in relation to requests for remote working arrangements or
Make an award of up to 20 weeks’ remuneration for a breach of the employer’s obligations in relation to requests for flexible working arrangements.
The team at CC Solicitors are experienced specialist employment law advisers. If you need assistance in relation to how to develop a Work Life Balance Policy for your organisation or indeed how to respond to a flexible or remote working request, please do not hesitate to contact a member of the team.
Regan O’Driscoll, Colleen Cleary and Bernadette Daly
CC, HR and Legal released a new website which features its speciality workplace investigations, mediation and training business. The CC HR and Legal team steps in to support companies or organisations when they are grappling with a HR crisis or serious workplace situation that demands immediate guidance and advice. They have particular expertise in conducting independent workplace investigations as well as drafting policies and training companies on how to conduct their own internal investigations.
Gold Standard Investigations
CC, HR and Legal has a gold standard approach and methodology to all workplace investigations. What sets the team apart is that they are qualified legal professionals who are trained in mediation and investigations, with the US based Association of Workplace Investigators. They provide confidential and impartial investigations and are adept at investigating sensitive and complex matters such as bullying and harassment and whistleblowing. As experienced mediators, they also help parties involved in disputes communicate effectively, find common ground, and reach mutually beneficial agreements.
”In a field where the absence of required qualifications can lead to varied approaches, we take pride in our specialisation. I am confident that our legally qualified investigators, with their meticulous approach to evidence evaluation, set us apart as the leading specialists in workplace investigations. The recently amended Protected Disclosures Act imposes significant new obligations on employers. Employers with 50-249 employees are required to establish, maintain and operate whistleblowing procedures by December 2023 and we envisage an uptake in the requirement for investigators with a legal qualification in this area ” said Colleen Cleary, Founder, CC HR and Legal.
There is no specific legislation or required qualification to conduct a workplace investigation, hence the approach of workplace investigators is wide and varied. It is important to choose your investigator with care as well as having a well drafted policy in place, to ensure the investigation is conducted with the requisite skill.
The importance of a skilled investigator
Workplace investigations are now a regular feature of the workplace. Similarly, there is a trend in the public and private sector to investigate and conduct inquiries of internal practices and decision making. The demand for quality investigators has never been higher.
The appointment of a suitably qualified and skilled workplace investigator either internally or externally is fundamental to the investigation process. The quality of the report will reflect their experience, impartiality, and ability. Organisations must think carefully about who they are appointing as they will have to live with and implement the outcome of that process.
The consequences of a mismanaged investigation cannot be overstated. As can be seen in workplace investigations played out in the media, they can be hugely damaging to the reputation of all parties. It can also result in further complaints and appeals and in the more extreme cases, expose the organisation to potential legal claims.
Key tips for workplace investigations
Workplace investigations can range from the relatively straightforward investigation of a workplace grievance to a serious conduct issue, such as bullying and harassment or have a whistleblowing aspect. Getting it right from the outset is key. It is helpful on receiving a complaint to do a road map as to what the process and potential outcomes may be. The starting point is to ascertain if you have suitable internal procedures to investigate the complaint and whether you also need to put together appropriate terms of reference to tie it in with the complaint made.
This can be useful as often procedures will not be clear on the specific steps to be taken in the process. Organisations should consider who might conduct each stage of the process and what happens if there is an appeal. This will get the organisation thinking straight away about the various stages of the process and what may be required at each stage; whether some people should be kept out of the initial process in case they are needed at a later stage; are there steps now you need to take to protect one of or both parties, is this provided for in existing policies and procedures.
Once the investigation gets off the ground it is important that the investigator regularly communicates with the parties and explains any delays and provides an estimate as to timings for completion of the process, which may be updated. The process will require the investigator to plan the investigation process, interview relevant persons and collate relevant evidence. This is why an ability to interview persons and elicit appropriate information is important. The investigator is not obliged to interview every person that they are requested to meet but they should explain why perhaps they are not, for example, if the information has already been provided by a witness.
Many investigations get bogged down in agreeing minutes of meetings. A way to address this is to call them notes not minutes. Investigators should ensure they have a good note taker with them who is experienced in taking an accurate note of a meeting. The notes can be typed and read back there and then at the meeting to verify and shared thereafter for comment.
Pitfalls to avoid in writing a report
Once the interviews and evidence are collated, the investigator is obliged to put together a report. This is perhaps the most difficult part of the process and in our experience when things unravel. Many investigators exceed their remit and make actual findings in their decision when they are not required to do so as part of the Terms of Reference. This will completely undermine the process and render the subsequent stages of the process obsolete. If one of the employees is legally represented this will be challenged and demands may be made to restart the process and/ or legal proceedings will be threatened and/or instigated.
This will incur time and cost and expose the organisation procedures to public scrutiny and potential negative publicity. As legally trained workplace investigators, we are skilled in advising clients when drafting reports to ensure they align the outcome with the internal procedures and terms of reference.
There is of course less control when the process has been allocated to an external investigator. We also have a panel of legally trained investigators who can undertake such investigations and ensure the outcomes are aligned to the terms of reference and the remit not exceeded in a report.
As legally trained investigators, we are skilled in assessing credibility of the witnesses and evidence. It is not unlike an approach taken by a judge in weighing up the evidence in a trial and explaining their assessment and whether on balance the behaviour/conduct occurred. This is where workplace investigators with a legal qualification have the lead in their trained ability to assess the credibility of the witnesses and evidence and document in clear language their rationale in the report. Legally trained investigators also have the advantage of understanding the law. This is critical when investigating complaints of sexual harass- ment, penalisation and whistleblowing as the legislation around these concepts is complex.
A well-reasoned report will ensure both parties feel heard, potentially head off an appeal and if necessary, used as a defence if required in future legal proceedings. We have a panel of legally trained investigators who can undertake such investigations and/or advise on internal workplace investigations and are accredited by the US Association of Workplace Investigators (“AWI”). This ensures that we are leaders in this area and have the most up to date and international approach to workplace investigation.
We will see knock-on effects of the tech slowdown in Ireland in other industries. When a firm is announcing redundancies, it cannot be a one size fits all. This article is an overview of some issues employers need to consider when making redundancies.
What is a redundancy?
In simple terms, a redundancy is a termination of employment not related to the individual but rather their role. There are two important elements which characterise a redundancy dismissal according to the case law: impersonality (it is not about the individual but rather the function) and change. The change could be a business closing down completely or in a particular location. However, the most common redundancy situations we advise upon are where there is less work to do and therefore fewer employees required to do it or the employer has decided to do the work in a different way meaning fewer employees are required. In those cases, the employer needs to work out who to select for redundancy and how to ensure that selection is fair.
Why is it important to ensure it is a redundancy?
Redundancy is a potentially fair reason for dismissal but may still give rise to claims for unfair dismissal if it is not a genuine redundancy situation and/or the employer does not follow a fair procedure when making an individual redundant. Employees with one year’s continuous service are entitled to claim unfair dismissal for which the maximum compensation is two years’ gross remuneration so getting this wrong can be expensive.
When carrying out individual redundancies, employers are expected to:
apply fair and objective methods of selection;
consult with the affected employees for a reasonable period of time; and
seek alternatives to redundancy such as redeployment.
How should selection for redundancy be carried out?
This depends on whether the role is a stand-alone, unique one or whether a number of employees do the same or a similar role. A stand-alone role may be identified as being removed from an organisational structure or an entire layer of management may be removed. In these circumstances, there may be nobody else carrying out the same role and so there will be no need to apply selection criteria it will be clear that the individual is at risk. Be careful though: where two roles are merged into one creating a new role, it will be important to give both employees in the existing roles a chance to apply for the new role rather than simply appointing one of them to it.
If you are going from 8 employees doing the same job to 5 employees doing the same job, all 8 employees should be in the pool for selection and they should be scored against fair and objective criteria to decide who is selected for redundancy.
What is fair and objective is not as simple as it seems. Clearly measurable targets and KPIs are seen as objective. Do all members of that team have a specific sales or revenue target? Are they required to generate a certain amount of new business or clients? This can be a useful means of assessing relative performance for the purposes of a redundancy exercise but you have to be careful not to discriminate against women who may have been on maternity leave for half the year or somebody who has had a period of disability-related sick leave.
Some employers like to use the most recent appraisal rating as a factor but the appraisal system has to be fair and robust if you want to rely on it.
Time-keeping and attendance is often seen as an objective measure but it can discriminate against parents with childcare responsibilities and employees with disabilities, for example.
So the issue of fair selection can be more complex than it first seems. It is very important to ensure that selection for redundancy does not discriminate whether directly or indirectly against employees on any of the protected grounds in the Employment Equality Acts. These are:
Gender (including pregnancy and maternity leave)
Civil status
Family status
Sexual orientation
Religion/Belief
Age
Disability
Race
Membership of the Traveller community
Pregnancy and Maternity Leave
Women who are pregnant are not automatically protected from being made redundant but dismissing a pregnant woman can give rise to claims of automatic unfair dismissal and discrimination on the gender ground under Irish law.
The European Court of Justice has previously confirmed that as a matter of EU law, employers can dismiss pregnant women as part of a collective redundancy, if national law allows. Employers do not need to specify additional grounds to dismiss pregnant women other than those justifying the collective dismissal. However, the underlying Directive prohibits pregnant workers from being dismissed barring exceptional circumstances. As a result, employers must be very careful to document the reasons for the redundancy and the selection of a pregnant woman and none of the reasons should have any link to the individual’s pregnancy or forthcoming maternity leave. As this is difficult to prove, many employers prefer to ring-fence pregnant women from dismissal during a collective redundancy process. This is lawful because employers may afford pregnant women and women on maternity leave more favourable treatment than other employees.
Under the Maternity Protection Act 1994 dismissal (for redundancy or otherwise) of an employee who is on maternity leave will be considered void and the employment will be extended by the period of such absence as they are on protective leave until the end of the maternity leave period. An employee may still be made redundant on return to work from maternity leave.
Our advice to employers is that it is important to include women who are on maternity leave and who are in scope for redundancy in communications about the potential redundancy while making it clear that no final decisions will be taken before their return to work. They should be given the option of engaging with the employer at the time other staff are made redundant or choosing to wait until they return from maternity leave. Otherwise they are left in the dark and cannot consider alternative employment which may be available at the relevant time.
This article is an overview of some issues employers need to consider when making redundancies. It is not legal advice. Please get in touch for expert, tailored employment law advice in relation to your organisation.
On 25 January 2022, the Government published the Right to Request Remote Work Bill 2021. The Bill provides employees with a statutory right to request a remote working arrangement. It further requires employers to have a Remote Working Policy in line with a proposed Code of Practice.
Submitting a Request
Employees are entitled to submit a request to work remotely in writing to their employer provided they have been employed for a minimum period of six months. Where making a request, the request must include the following details:
The proposed working location
The proposed start date for arrangements
The proposed number of days to be worked remotely, along with hours
Any previous requests made by the employee for remote working, and
A self-assessment of the suitability of the proposed remote working location, including a plan for addressing concerns like confidentiality, connectivity and data protection.
Employers may write to the employee seeking further reasonable information or evidence relating to the request and may request a meeting with the employee to discuss their proposal, allowing the employer an opportunity to consult with the employee when considering their request.
Response to the Proposals
Following consultation with the employee, employers must return a decision in writing indicating whether the request for remote working has been wholly approved, partially approved or denied at the very least within 12 weeks from receipt of the request.
Declining Remote Working Requests
Employers may decline requests after giving them due consideration, once satisfied that the proposal is not suitable on business grounds.
“Business grounds” are wide ranging and include but are not limited to:
The nature of work not allowing for the work to be done remotely
The inability to reorganise work among existing staff
Potential negative impact on quality of business product/service
Potential negative impact on employee performance, or performance of other employees
Burden of additional costs after all financial and other costs that would be entailed have been taken into account
Concerns for protection of intellectual property or of business confidentiality
Concerns for suitability of proposed workplace on health and safety grounds
Concerns for suitability of proposed workplace on data protection grounds